https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771793 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined because a statutory appeal against the assessment order was already pending before the appellate authority, which could examine the grievance concerning alleged excess utilisation of input tax credit under the CGST and SGST Acts. The Court found no prejudice in awaiting that appeal and held that writ interference was not warranted. To address delay concerns, it directed the appellate authority to dispose of the pending appeal expeditiously within four weeks. en-us Wed, 08 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jun 2025 13:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771793 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined because a statutory appeal against the assessment order was already pending before the appellate authority, which could examine the grievance concerning alleged excess utilisation of input tax credit under the CGST and SGST Acts. The Court found no prejudice in awaiting that appeal and held that writ interference was not warranted. To address delay concerns, it directed the appellate authority to dispose of the pending appeal expeditiously within four weeks. Case-Laws GST Wed, 08 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771793