https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757236 The dominant issue was whether the HC should exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction to interfere with administrative reversal of input tax credit on the ground that the taxpayer's reply was not properly considered and that action ought first to be taken against the supplier. The HC held that the matter turned on disputed facts, including whether the alleged supplier was a fake/bogus entity, and did not disclose any jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice warranting writ intervention. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory alternative remedy. en-us Thu, 25 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jan 2026 14:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757236 The dominant issue was whether the HC should exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction to interfere with administrative reversal of input tax credit on the ground that the taxpayer's reply was not properly considered and that action ought first to be taken against the supplier. The HC held that the matter turned on disputed facts, including whether the alleged supplier was a fake/bogus entity, and did not disclose any jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice warranting writ intervention. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory alternative remedy. Case-Laws GST Thu, 25 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757236