https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789354 A writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original and recovery proceedings was held not maintainable where an efficacious statutory appeal under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was available but had lapsed because the petitioner failed to invoke it within the prescribed limitation period. The Court applied the settled principle that Article 226 relief is ordinarily declined when an alternate statutory remedy exists, especially where the party's own inaction caused the loss of that remedy. As a result, the Court refused discretionary writ interference and left the tax and recovery proceedings undisturbed. en-us Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Apr 2026 07:48:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789354 A writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original and recovery proceedings was held not maintainable where an efficacious statutory appeal under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was available but had lapsed because the petitioner failed to invoke it within the prescribed limitation period. The Court applied the settled principle that Article 226 relief is ordinarily declined when an alternate statutory remedy exists, especially where the party's own inaction caused the loss of that remedy. As a result, the Court refused discretionary writ interference and left the tax and recovery proceedings undisturbed. Case-Laws GST Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789354