https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783909 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. 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 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. Case-Laws GST Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783909