https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790190 State tax authorities may initiate intelligence-based enforcement action even where the taxpayer is assigned to the Central administration, so jurisdiction was upheld for such proceedings. The writ court declined to examine the classification dispute on merits because it involved disputed questions of fact, which are ordinarily not determined under Article 226. The challenge to the suppression finding and the invocation of proceedings was treated as a matter for the appellate authority, and the writ petitions were dismissed with the petitioner left to pursue the statutory remedy. en-us Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Apr 2026 08:48:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790190 State tax authorities may initiate intelligence-based enforcement action even where the taxpayer is assigned to the Central administration, so jurisdiction was upheld for such proceedings. The writ court declined to examine the classification dispute on merits because it involved disputed questions of fact, which are ordinarily not determined under Article 226. The challenge to the suppression finding and the invocation of proceedings was treated as a matter for the appellate authority, and the writ petitions were dismissed with the petitioner left to pursue the statutory remedy. Case-Laws GST Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790190