https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784244 Where a GST demand under Section 74 was based on alleged non-payment by the supplier, and the supplier later filed returns and paid the tax with interest, the existing adjudication could not stand without fresh examination of the recipient's entitlement to input tax credit and the underlying liability. The HC held that the changed factual position required reopening of the matter and reconsideration by the adjudicating authority in accordance with law. The impugned demand order was set aside, and the dispute was remanded for re-adjudication on liability and admissibility of the recipient's claim. en-us Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 09:18:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784244 Where a GST demand under Section 74 was based on alleged non-payment by the supplier, and the supplier later filed returns and paid the tax with interest, the existing adjudication could not stand without fresh examination of the recipient's entitlement to input tax credit and the underlying liability. The HC held that the changed factual position required reopening of the matter and reconsideration by the adjudicating authority in accordance with law. The impugned demand order was set aside, and the dispute was remanded for re-adjudication on liability and admissibility of the recipient's claim. Case-Laws GST Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784244