https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777201 HC held writ jurisdiction unsuitable for adjudicating multiple differing orders and factual matrices; the proper officer cannot be fixed based on a single noticee and the petitioner's contentions can be raised in appeals under s.107 CGST. The petitioner was permitted to file six individual appeals against the impugned orders, to be filed by 30 September 2025. Pre-deposit was required only for the order dated 28 January 2025, where total demand is Rs. 15,90,84,564 (tax Rs. 7,95,42,282, balance penalty). Petition disposed. en-us Wed, 20 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Aug 2025 15:34:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777201 HC held writ jurisdiction unsuitable for adjudicating multiple differing orders and factual matrices; the proper officer cannot be fixed based on a single noticee and the petitioner's contentions can be raised in appeals under s.107 CGST. The petitioner was permitted to file six individual appeals against the impugned orders, to be filed by 30 September 2025. Pre-deposit was required only for the order dated 28 January 2025, where total demand is Rs. 15,90,84,564 (tax Rs. 7,95,42,282, balance penalty). Petition disposed. Case-Laws GST Wed, 20 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777201