https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792021 Where GST search, inspection, stock discrepancy and penalty proceedings turn on disputed facts, the High Court should ordinarily decline writ interference under Article 226 when an effective statutory appeal is available. The challenge to the search authorization, inspection process, stock records and quantification required factual adjudication by the competent authority, not writ determination. Applying the rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies, the Court held that the petitioner should pursue the appellate remedy rather than invoke writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was therefore not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal. en-us Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 May 2026 08:30:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792021 Where GST search, inspection, stock discrepancy and penalty proceedings turn on disputed facts, the High Court should ordinarily decline writ interference under Article 226 when an effective statutory appeal is available. The challenge to the search authorization, inspection process, stock records and quantification required factual adjudication by the competent authority, not writ determination. Applying the rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies, the Court held that the petitioner should pursue the appellate remedy rather than invoke writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was therefore not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal. Case-Laws GST Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792021