https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774910 The Kerala HC noted that the challenge to Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/SGST regime, which requires the recipient to ensure the supplier has paid output tax, had already been rejected by the Single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench, so it could not be reopened in the writ appeal. The Court, however, allowed limited procedural relief by extending time by one month and permitting the appellant to place before the assessing authority a claim based on the cited circulars and the alleged errors in Form GSTR-3B, with directions for expeditious consideration. en-us Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jul 2025 08:17:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774910 The Kerala HC noted that the challenge to Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/SGST regime, which requires the recipient to ensure the supplier has paid output tax, had already been rejected by the Single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench, so it could not be reopened in the writ appeal. The Court, however, allowed limited procedural relief by extending time by one month and permitting the appellant to place before the assessing authority a claim based on the cited circulars and the alleged errors in Form GSTR-3B, with directions for expeditious consideration. Case-Laws GST Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774910