https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775538 The HC held that the impugned order was passed within jurisdiction but noted overlapping jurisdiction between Central and State authorities for the 2019-20 period. The petitioner, having not appealed earlier, was liable to pay the differential tax, penalty, and interest. However, due to jurisdictional overlap and pending Division Bench consideration, the HC set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the respondent to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner's replies and payments made. The petition was disposed by remand. en-us Mon, 23 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Jul 2025 08:39:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775538 The HC held that the impugned order was passed within jurisdiction but noted overlapping jurisdiction between Central and State authorities for the 2019-20 period. The petitioner, having not appealed earlier, was liable to pay the differential tax, penalty, and interest. However, due to jurisdictional overlap and pending Division Bench consideration, the HC set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the respondent to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner's replies and payments made. The petition was disposed by remand. Case-Laws GST Mon, 23 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775538