https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784329 The dominant issue was whether assessment orders alleging excess ITC, non-generation of 3-way invoices, mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, and under-declaration in GSTR-9 could stand without affording a meaningful opportunity to respond with supporting documents. The HC held that, since the assessee undertook to deposit the disputed amounts and the matters required reconsideration on merits after a proper reply to the DRC-01 notices, the impugned orders warranted interference. The assessment orders were quashed and the matters remitted for de novo adjudication, conditional on deposit within 30 days and filing replies with documents; upon compliance, any bank attachment was to be vacated and fresh orders passed after hearing. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jan 2026 07:51:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784329 The dominant issue was whether assessment orders alleging excess ITC, non-generation of 3-way invoices, mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, and under-declaration in GSTR-9 could stand without affording a meaningful opportunity to respond with supporting documents. The HC held that, since the assessee undertook to deposit the disputed amounts and the matters required reconsideration on merits after a proper reply to the DRC-01 notices, the impugned orders warranted interference. The assessment orders were quashed and the matters remitted for de novo adjudication, conditional on deposit within 30 days and filing replies with documents; upon compliance, any bank attachment was to be vacated and fresh orders passed after hearing. Case-Laws GST Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784329