https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794826 Writ interference under the CGST Act is exceptional where a statutory appeal under Section 107 exists; absent patent natural justice breach, jurisdictional excess, or vires challenge, the petitioner must pursue appeal, and the writ was rejected. Non-consideration of a reply under Section 74(9) was not shown where the order recorded a reply and reasons, so appellate review was the proper forum. Allegations of non-service of hearing notices, coercive recording of statement, and denial of cross-examination involved disputed facts and merits, not a clear jurisdictional defect. The adjudicating authority was also held competent to impose consequential penalties under Sections 122(1)(ii) and 122(3)(e). en-us Thu, 09 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Jul 2026 08:46:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794826 Writ interference under the CGST Act is exceptional where a statutory appeal under Section 107 exists; absent patent natural justice breach, jurisdictional excess, or vires challenge, the petitioner must pursue appeal, and the writ was rejected. Non-consideration of a reply under Section 74(9) was not shown where the order recorded a reply and reasons, so appellate review was the proper forum. Allegations of non-service of hearing notices, coercive recording of statement, and denial of cross-examination involved disputed facts and merits, not a clear jurisdictional defect. The adjudicating authority was also held competent to impose consequential penalties under Sections 122(1)(ii) and 122(3)(e). Case-Laws GST Thu, 09 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794826