https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782457 HC held that interference under Art. 226 against a show-cause notice is permissible only where the notice is a nullity for lack of jurisdiction. Relying on precedent, HC found that the impugned notice under s.74 CGST Act was issued by a competent authority and there was no inherent lack of jurisdiction, even though the petitioner alleged absence of specific s.74 ingredients such as fraud. Consequently, HC declined to quash the notice, refused to entertain the writ petition, but directed that the petitioner be given up to 15 days to file a reply and be heard before final adjudication. en-us Wed, 26 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Nov 2025 07:57:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782457 HC held that interference under Art. 226 against a show-cause notice is permissible only where the notice is a nullity for lack of jurisdiction. Relying on precedent, HC found that the impugned notice under s.74 CGST Act was issued by a competent authority and there was no inherent lack of jurisdiction, even though the petitioner alleged absence of specific s.74 ingredients such as fraud. Consequently, HC declined to quash the notice, refused to entertain the writ petition, but directed that the petitioner be given up to 15 days to file a reply and be heard before final adjudication. Case-Laws GST Wed, 26 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782457