https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792157 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined because the GST demand challenge involved disputed questions of fact and an effective statutory appellate remedy was available. The petitioner's claim that no valid show-cause notice preceded the demand was assessed against the annexed notice, and the Court held that the alleged discrepancy required factual examination by the adjudicating and appellate forums under the GST framework. Applying the settled rule of non-interference where an efficacious alternative remedy exists, the writ petition was held not maintainable and the challenge was left to be pursued before the statutory forum. en-us Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 May 2026 08:27:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792157 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined because the GST demand challenge involved disputed questions of fact and an effective statutory appellate remedy was available. The petitioner's claim that no valid show-cause notice preceded the demand was assessed against the annexed notice, and the Court held that the alleged discrepancy required factual examination by the adjudicating and appellate forums under the GST framework. Applying the settled rule of non-interference where an efficacious alternative remedy exists, the writ petition was held not maintainable and the challenge was left to be pursued before the statutory forum. Case-Laws GST Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792157