https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784055 The dominant issue was whether the GST demand order alleging excess/irregular ITC availment, non-payment of interest on belated GST payment, and late fee for delayed GSTR-9 filing required reconsideration on merits consistent with natural justice. The HC held that the assessee must be afforded an effective opportunity to reply with supporting documents by treating the impugned order as an addendum to the earlier show cause notice, and therefore remitted the matter for a fresh order on the surviving issues. The remand was made conditional upon the assessee depositing 50% of the disputed tax (for the specified head) in cash and filing a comprehensive reply within 30 days, failing which the benefit would not enure. Upon compliance, bank attachment stood automatically vacated. en-us Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Dec 2025 08:06:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784055 The dominant issue was whether the GST demand order alleging excess/irregular ITC availment, non-payment of interest on belated GST payment, and late fee for delayed GSTR-9 filing required reconsideration on merits consistent with natural justice. The HC held that the assessee must be afforded an effective opportunity to reply with supporting documents by treating the impugned order as an addendum to the earlier show cause notice, and therefore remitted the matter for a fresh order on the surviving issues. The remand was made conditional upon the assessee depositing 50% of the disputed tax (for the specified head) in cash and filing a comprehensive reply within 30 days, failing which the benefit would not enure. Upon compliance, bank attachment stood automatically vacated. Case-Laws GST Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784055