https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779104 HC held that the demand-cum-show cause notice under Section 73 was without jurisdiction and set aside it and all consequential actions, because the proper officer failed to follow the mandatory scrutiny and notice procedure under Section 61 read with Rule 99 before invoking recovery for alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit. The court found no opportunity was given to the registered person to explain discrepancies in GSTR-9C (including Table 14, which was treated as optional for relevant years), and therefore revenue's action was unauthorized. Petition allowed; impugned order quashed. en-us Fri, 19 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Sep 2025 08:34:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779104 HC held that the demand-cum-show cause notice under Section 73 was without jurisdiction and set aside it and all consequential actions, because the proper officer failed to follow the mandatory scrutiny and notice procedure under Section 61 read with Rule 99 before invoking recovery for alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit. The court found no opportunity was given to the registered person to explain discrepancies in GSTR-9C (including Table 14, which was treated as optional for relevant years), and therefore revenue's action was unauthorized. Petition allowed; impugned order quashed. Case-Laws GST Fri, 19 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779104