https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792783 The High Court declined to examine the merits of the GST adjudication and appellate orders in writ jurisdiction because the Tribunal had started functioning, giving the petitioner an effective statutory remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017; the petitioner was left to pursue the appeal before the Tribunal. The challenge to the extension notification issued under Section 168A, and the related validity issue, was not decided because that question was already under Supreme Court scrutiny, so the effect of the impugned order on that aspect was left open to abide by the Supreme Court's decision. en-us Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jun 2026 08:50:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792783 The High Court declined to examine the merits of the GST adjudication and appellate orders in writ jurisdiction because the Tribunal had started functioning, giving the petitioner an effective statutory remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017; the petitioner was left to pursue the appeal before the Tribunal. The challenge to the extension notification issued under Section 168A, and the related validity issue, was not decided because that question was already under Supreme Court scrutiny, so the effect of the impugned order on that aspect was left open to abide by the Supreme Court's decision. Case-Laws GST Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792783