https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781546 HC declined to interfere with the authority's order disposing of the petitioner's refund application, noting the petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. The Court found no jurisdictional error warranting exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction and held that the authority validly possessed jurisdiction to process and decide the refund request. Although HC acknowledged it can set aside orders in fit cases, it concluded this case did not justify interference and disposed of the petition. en-us Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Nov 2025 08:36:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781546 HC declined to interfere with the authority's order disposing of the petitioner's refund application, noting the petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. The Court found no jurisdictional error warranting exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction and held that the authority validly possessed jurisdiction to process and decide the refund request. Although HC acknowledged it can set aside orders in fit cases, it concluded this case did not justify interference and disposed of the petition. Case-Laws GST Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781546