https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463872 SC refused to entertain the SLP and dismissed the petition. The High Court had recorded that no search or seizure under s.67 occurred, the parties had made payments under s.74(5) and notified the Proper Officer via Form GST DRC-03 as per Rule 142(2), and issues about validity of summons in relation to inspection/search proceedings and entitlement to refund/re-credit under the EOU scheme raised no ground warranting interference under Article 136. en-us Fri, 06 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Sep 2025 12:09:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463872 SC refused to entertain the SLP and dismissed the petition. The High Court had recorded that no search or seizure under s.67 occurred, the parties had made payments under s.74(5) and notified the Proper Officer via Form GST DRC-03 as per Rule 142(2), and issues about validity of summons in relation to inspection/search proceedings and entitlement to refund/re-credit under the EOU scheme raised no ground warranting interference under Article 136. Case-Laws GST Fri, 06 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463872