https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777102 HC found that service may have been deficient because the show-cause notice was uploaded under "additional notices and orders" rather than the usual "view notices and orders," so the petitioners may not have had notice to contest the proceedings. Noting Rs.75,354 had already been deducted, HC permitted the petitioners to prefer an appeal against the order dated 4 Feb 2025 without adjudicating the service dispute. The consequential attachment effected by notice dated 11 June 2025 (Form GST DRC-13) was quashed. Petition disposed. en-us Thu, 07 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Aug 2025 08:31:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777102 HC found that service may have been deficient because the show-cause notice was uploaded under "additional notices and orders" rather than the usual "view notices and orders," so the petitioners may not have had notice to contest the proceedings. Noting Rs.75,354 had already been deducted, HC permitted the petitioners to prefer an appeal against the order dated 4 Feb 2025 without adjudicating the service dispute. The consequential attachment effected by notice dated 11 June 2025 (Form GST DRC-13) was quashed. Petition disposed. Case-Laws GST Thu, 07 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777102