https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793904 Writ interference was declined because the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act remained an efficacious remedy for factual and legal challenges, and the petitioners had not shown any basis to bypass it. The Court also found no violation of natural justice or lack of sustainable findings in the penalty order under Section 122(1A), since the adjudicating authority relied on statements, electronic records, WhatsApp chats, and admissions indicating knowledge and participation in fake invoices, bogus e-way bills, and hawala routing. The reasoned penalty order was left undisturbed. en-us Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jun 2026 08:27:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793904 Writ interference was declined because the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act remained an efficacious remedy for factual and legal challenges, and the petitioners had not shown any basis to bypass it. The Court also found no violation of natural justice or lack of sustainable findings in the penalty order under Section 122(1A), since the adjudicating authority relied on statements, electronic records, WhatsApp chats, and admissions indicating knowledge and participation in fake invoices, bogus e-way bills, and hawala routing. The reasoned penalty order was left undisturbed. Case-Laws GST Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793904