https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763345 Writ interference was treated as inappropriate where an adjudication order had been passed after considering the reply and an efficacious statutory appeal was available. The challenge based on non-supply of documents was rejected because the taxpayer had not requested those documents in response to the notices and had replied on the material available. A discrepancy between the hearing date stated in the notice and the date of the order was held insufficient to invalidate the order because no prejudice was shown. The discussion emphasises restraint in writ jurisdiction, the primacy of alternative appellate remedies, and the need to demonstrate prejudice when procedural objections are raised. en-us Wed, 04 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Jun 2025 18:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763345 Writ interference was treated as inappropriate where an adjudication order had been passed after considering the reply and an efficacious statutory appeal was available. The challenge based on non-supply of documents was rejected because the taxpayer had not requested those documents in response to the notices and had replied on the material available. A discrepancy between the hearing date stated in the notice and the date of the order was held insufficient to invalidate the order because no prejudice was shown. The discussion emphasises restraint in writ jurisdiction, the primacy of alternative appellate remedies, and the need to demonstrate prejudice when procedural objections are raised. Case-Laws GST Wed, 04 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763345