https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448103 The petitioner did not press the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act or the corresponding KGST provisions, and the Court therefore did not examine or decide that issue or the alternative request to read the provisions down. It held that the petitioner must pursue the statutory remedies available under the CGST/KGST scheme in relation to the impugned orders and show cause notices, including filing replies where required, rather than seek writ relief. The Court further directed that the period spent prosecuting the writ petition be excluded while computing limitation for any appeal or response to notices, preserving access to the statutory forum. en-us Mon, 11 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448103 The petitioner did not press the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act or the corresponding KGST provisions, and the Court therefore did not examine or decide that issue or the alternative request to read the provisions down. It held that the petitioner must pursue the statutory remedies available under the CGST/KGST scheme in relation to the impugned orders and show cause notices, including filing replies where required, rather than seek writ relief. The Court further directed that the period spent prosecuting the writ petition be excluded while computing limitation for any appeal or response to notices, preserving access to the statutory forum. Case-Laws GST Mon, 11 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448103