https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414552 The court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction, stating the appellant had the remedy of appeal against the cancellation order and that the writ remedy was misconceived. The court found no merit in interfering with the jurisdiction exercised but clarified that the appellant could explore other available options. The appellant was granted liberties to avail options under Ext.P7 notification and file an appeal with an application to condone delay before the Appellate Authority. The court instructed the Standing Counsel to inform relevant respondents about the granted liberties. The writ appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs. en-us Fri, 27 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414552 The court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction, stating the appellant had the remedy of appeal against the cancellation order and that the writ remedy was misconceived. The court found no merit in interfering with the jurisdiction exercised but clarified that the appellant could explore other available options. The appellant was granted liberties to avail options under Ext.P7 notification and file an appeal with an application to condone delay before the Appellate Authority. The court instructed the Standing Counsel to inform relevant respondents about the granted liberties. The writ appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs. Case-Laws GST Fri, 27 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414552