https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781616 HC held the initiation of proceedings under Section 73 was beyond jurisdiction and quashed the impugned orders, allowing the petition. The court found original records showed the petitioner had been awarded a work contract by a state utility for the relevant years and that GST authorities could not retroactively levy GST, interest or penalty on work performed prior to the GST regime merely because payments were recorded post-GST or because of a mismatch between GSTR-3B and Form 26AS. The matter should have been referred to the pre-GST assessing authority. en-us Mon, 17 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Nov 2025 08:42:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781616 HC held the initiation of proceedings under Section 73 was beyond jurisdiction and quashed the impugned orders, allowing the petition. The court found original records showed the petitioner had been awarded a work contract by a state utility for the relevant years and that GST authorities could not retroactively levy GST, interest or penalty on work performed prior to the GST regime merely because payments were recorded post-GST or because of a mismatch between GSTR-3B and Form 26AS. The matter should have been referred to the pre-GST assessing authority. Case-Laws GST Mon, 17 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781616