https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776452 Prior compliance with an impugned order does not by itself bar a challenge before a higher forum, especially where reversal may still permit restitution. Alleged suppression of facts warrants denial of discretionary relief only if the withheld fact is material and affects the merits; a non-material omission is not enough to defeat maintainability. On the merits, however, the Court found no sufficient ground to exercise Article 136 jurisdiction and declined to interfere with the High Court's order, leaving it undisturbed. en-us Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Aug 2025 21:45:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776452 Prior compliance with an impugned order does not by itself bar a challenge before a higher forum, especially where reversal may still permit restitution. Alleged suppression of facts warrants denial of discretionary relief only if the withheld fact is material and affects the merits; a non-material omission is not enough to defeat maintainability. On the merits, however, the Court found no sufficient ground to exercise Article 136 jurisdiction and declined to interfere with the High Court's order, leaving it undisturbed. Case-Laws GST Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776452