https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779922 The HC found the petitioner's detailed reply to the SCN may not have been fully considered and, while noting writ jurisdiction is generally inappropriate for allegations of fraudulent availment of ITC, declined to decide merits. In view of potential breach of natural justice, the HC permitted the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act against the impugned order dated 3 February 2025 by 30 November 2025 with the requisite pre-deposit. Petition disposed. en-us Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:27:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779922 The HC found the petitioner's detailed reply to the SCN may not have been fully considered and, while noting writ jurisdiction is generally inappropriate for allegations of fraudulent availment of ITC, declined to decide merits. In view of potential breach of natural justice, the HC permitted the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act against the impugned order dated 3 February 2025 by 30 November 2025 with the requisite pre-deposit. Petition disposed. Case-Laws GST Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779922