https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449031 The dominant issue was whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised to quash GST assessment orders on alleged violation of natural justice and errors affecting input tax credit. On the discrepancy between the show cause notice and the impugned order, the HC held that the record disclosed an arguable basis that the notice reflected a typographical error (showing CGST liability as nil) when read as a whole, and no conclusive finding was warranted in writ; interference was declined. On transitional ITC, the HC held that the assessee bears the burden to prove entitlement and the assessing officer may call for further documents; this did not justify writ interference. Allegations of registrations in employees' names for wrongful ITC did not, cumulatively, establish grounds to invoke discretionary jurisdiction; the writ petitions were dismissed with liberty to file statutory appeals. en-us Mon, 29 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 14:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449031 The dominant issue was whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised to quash GST assessment orders on alleged violation of natural justice and errors affecting input tax credit. On the discrepancy between the show cause notice and the impugned order, the HC held that the record disclosed an arguable basis that the notice reflected a typographical error (showing CGST liability as nil) when read as a whole, and no conclusive finding was warranted in writ; interference was declined. On transitional ITC, the HC held that the assessee bears the burden to prove entitlement and the assessing officer may call for further documents; this did not justify writ interference. Allegations of registrations in employees' names for wrongful ITC did not, cumulatively, establish grounds to invoke discretionary jurisdiction; the writ petitions were dismissed with liberty to file statutory appeals. Case-Laws GST Mon, 29 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449031