https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782542 HC held that the challenge to the original order under s.73 of the GST enactments was infructuous as it had been superseded by a subsequent order dated 18.03.2025 under s.161, which raised a fresh demand of Rs. 3,85,35,356 on different grounds. HC noted that the Petitioner failed to respond to notices seeking documents and had an effective remedy against the rectified order and its rejection. Balancing interests, HC remitted the matter to the 2nd Respondent to pass a fresh order, treating the order dated 18.03.2025 as a show-cause notice. Petition dismissed. en-us Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Dec 2025 08:50:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782542 HC held that the challenge to the original order under s.73 of the GST enactments was infructuous as it had been superseded by a subsequent order dated 18.03.2025 under s.161, which raised a fresh demand of Rs. 3,85,35,356 on different grounds. HC noted that the Petitioner failed to respond to notices seeking documents and had an effective remedy against the rectified order and its rejection. Balancing interests, HC remitted the matter to the 2nd Respondent to pass a fresh order, treating the order dated 18.03.2025 as a show-cause notice. Petition dismissed. Case-Laws GST Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782542