Writ jurisdiction in GST disputes is normally declined when disputed facts exist and a statutory appeal remains available.

In GST detention and penalty matters, discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 will ordinarily not be exercised where an efficacious statutory appeal is available and the controversy depends on disputed facts. Here, the challenge to detention and penalty orders under the U.P. GST Act turned on factual disputes about the supplier's existence and the genuineness of the transport documents. Because the petitioner had not filed a reply to the show cause notice and could pursue the appellate remedy, the Court declined interference under Article 226 and left the dispute to the statutory forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference under Article 226 was warranted in a GST detention and penalty dispute where the petitioner had an appellate remedy and the facts were disputed.

Analysis: The writ petition arose from detention and penalty orders under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned orders and release of the vehicle and goods. The Court noted the State's preliminary objection that an efficacious statutory appeal was available and that no reply had been filed to the show cause notice. It further noted that the controversy turned on disputed facts, including the existence of the supplier and the correctness of the documents accompanying the goods. In such circumstances, the Court held that the matter was better left to the appellate forum and that discretionary writ jurisdiction should not be exercised.

Conclusion: Interference under Article 226 was declined and the writ petition was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal.

Final Conclusion: The order reaffirms that in GST matters involving disputed facts and an available statutory appeal, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised to bypass the appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the dispute under the GST detention provisions turns on unresolved facts and an efficacious statutory appeal is available, the Court will ordinarily decline to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

---