https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769019 HC declined to entertain the writ petition challenging the penalty imposed under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act, holding that disputed issues, including the petitioner's alleged non-retention of benefit and the validity of penalty from FY 2017 onwards, involve factual determinations inappropriate for writ jurisdiction. HC observed that the positions of other entities and individuals proceeded against are also relevant and best examined in appellate proceedings. Concluding that an efficacious remedy exists under Section 107 of the CGST Act, HC directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal and disposed of the petition. en-us Wed, 09 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769019 HC declined to entertain the writ petition challenging the penalty imposed under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act, holding that disputed issues, including the petitioner's alleged non-retention of benefit and the validity of penalty from FY 2017 onwards, involve factual determinations inappropriate for writ jurisdiction. HC observed that the positions of other entities and individuals proceeded against are also relevant and best examined in appellate proceedings. Concluding that an efficacious remedy exists under Section 107 of the CGST Act, HC directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal and disposed of the petition. Case-Laws GST Wed, 09 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769019