https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799337 GST adjudication challenges should ordinarily proceed through the statutory appeal where no patent jurisdictional defect is shown; evidentiary disputes concerning fraudulent input tax credit and supplier-related allegations require appellate factual assessment, and pre-deposit alone does not justify writ intervention. The bar on parallel proceedings applies only where Central and State GST actions concern the same liability or contravention and seek identical demand or relief; overlapping periods or input tax credit claims are insufficient. A consolidated notice covering multiple financial years under the fraud provision is not inherently without jurisdiction, while limitation, statutory conditions, and period-wise quantification remain open in appeal. en-us Fri, 18 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Sep 2026 08:20:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799337 GST adjudication challenges should ordinarily proceed through the statutory appeal where no patent jurisdictional defect is shown; evidentiary disputes concerning fraudulent input tax credit and supplier-related allegations require appellate factual assessment, and pre-deposit alone does not justify writ intervention. The bar on parallel proceedings applies only where Central and State GST actions concern the same liability or contravention and seek identical demand or relief; overlapping periods or input tax credit claims are insufficient. A consolidated notice covering multiple financial years under the fraud provision is not inherently without jurisdiction, while limitation, statutory conditions, and period-wise quantification remain open in appeal. Case-Laws GST Fri, 18 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799337