https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775063 The Delhi HC dismissed a writ petition challenging denial of input tax credit (ITC) and imposition of recovery with interest and penalty. The petitioner firm was found non-existent with no operations at registered premises. The court declined to entertain the petition, citing precedent that writ jurisdiction cannot adjudicate factual aspects regarding the petitioner's role, justification of penalty, or proportionate reduction based on invoices raised. The court held it cannot determine penalty liability under Sections 122(1) and 122(3) of CGST Act. The petitioner was directed to pursue appellate remedy under Section 107 of CGST Act before the appellate authority by August 14, 2025, along with requisite pre-deposit. The petition was disposed of with direction to exhaust statutory remedies. en-us Mon, 14 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:22:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775063 The Delhi HC dismissed a writ petition challenging denial of input tax credit (ITC) and imposition of recovery with interest and penalty. The petitioner firm was found non-existent with no operations at registered premises. The court declined to entertain the petition, citing precedent that writ jurisdiction cannot adjudicate factual aspects regarding the petitioner's role, justification of penalty, or proportionate reduction based on invoices raised. The court held it cannot determine penalty liability under Sections 122(1) and 122(3) of CGST Act. The petitioner was directed to pursue appellate remedy under Section 107 of CGST Act before the appellate authority by August 14, 2025, along with requisite pre-deposit. The petition was disposed of with direction to exhaust statutory remedies. Case-Laws GST Mon, 14 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775063