https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464675 HC dismissed the petition. The court held the final order of 04.01.2024 was timely because the petitioner failed to file ST-3 returns and did not respond to multiple notices between 2019-2020, only submitting a reply on 17.10.2023; the final order issued within three months thereafter. Non-compliance with the Master Circular (10.03.2017) and alleged pre-consultation requirements did not excuse the petitioner's conduct, so pre-consultation was unnecessary. The petitioner was held liable for attempted evasion and has an alternative statutory remedy by appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 86 of the Finance Act. en-us Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Nov 2025 20:29:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464675 HC dismissed the petition. The court held the final order of 04.01.2024 was timely because the petitioner failed to file ST-3 returns and did not respond to multiple notices between 2019-2020, only submitting a reply on 17.10.2023; the final order issued within three months thereafter. Non-compliance with the Master Circular (10.03.2017) and alleged pre-consultation requirements did not excuse the petitioner's conduct, so pre-consultation was unnecessary. The petitioner was held liable for attempted evasion and has an alternative statutory remedy by appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 86 of the Finance Act. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464675