https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780772 The HC refused to entertain the writ challenging alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit and held that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily inappropriate in such complex, fact-intensive GST fraud cases where statutory appeal is the proper remedy. Relying on SC precedent, the Court noted no breach of natural justice and observed the petitioner had received and replied to notices. The petitioner was relegated to file an appeal under Section 107 CGST Act and was permitted to file that appeal with the requisite pre-deposit by 30 November 2025; the petition was disposed. en-us Thu, 30 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Nov 2025 08:35:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780772 The HC refused to entertain the writ challenging alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit and held that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily inappropriate in such complex, fact-intensive GST fraud cases where statutory appeal is the proper remedy. Relying on SC precedent, the Court noted no breach of natural justice and observed the petitioner had received and replied to notices. The petitioner was relegated to file an appeal under Section 107 CGST Act and was permitted to file that appeal with the requisite pre-deposit by 30 November 2025; the petition was disposed. Case-Laws GST Thu, 30 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780772