https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783909 The dominant issue was maintainability of a writ under Article 226 against action under the U.P. GST Act where a statutory appeal lay and the challenge involved disputed facts, including non-response to the SCN and questions of service. The HC held that judicial discretion in writ jurisdiction is fact-sensitive and the "rule of consistency" does not compel interference merely because other transporters received different relief on distinguishable facts. Since the petitioner's grounds (validity of invoices, absence of survey, prejudice from SCN issued to the driver, and alleged non-communication of notice) required factual adjudication better suited to appellate proceedings, and no reply to the SCN was filed, the HC declined interference and dismissed the writ. en-us Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Dec 2025 07:51:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783909 The dominant issue was maintainability of a writ under Article 226 against action under the U.P. GST Act where a statutory appeal lay and the challenge involved disputed facts, including non-response to the SCN and questions of service. The HC held that judicial discretion in writ jurisdiction is fact-sensitive and the "rule of consistency" does not compel interference merely because other transporters received different relief on distinguishable facts. Since the petitioner's grounds (validity of invoices, absence of survey, prejudice from SCN issued to the driver, and alleged non-communication of notice) required factual adjudication better suited to appellate proceedings, and no reply to the SCN was filed, the HC declined interference and dismissed the writ. Case-Laws GST Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783909