https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102475 Writ jurisdiction against a GST demand was not considered appropriate where allegations of fraudulent registration, identity theft and forgery created disputed factual questions requiring evidence. As the impugned order addressed the taxpayers' submissions after a hearing, its factual findings were suitable for review by the statutory appellate authority. The High Court therefore declined to examine the merits and directed the taxpayers to pursue the available statutory appeal, with liberty to seek exclusion of the time spent prosecuting the writ petition for limitation purposes. en-us Fri, 07 Aug 2026 09:07:29 +0530 Fri, 07 Aug 2026 09:07:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102475 Writ jurisdiction against a GST demand was not considered appropriate where allegations of fraudulent registration, identity theft and forgery created disputed factual questions requiring evidence. As the impugned order addressed the taxpayers' submissions after a hearing, its factual findings were suitable for review by the statutory appellate authority. The High Court therefore declined to examine the merits and directed the taxpayers to pursue the available statutory appeal, with liberty to seek exclusion of the time spent prosecuting the writ petition for limitation purposes. Highlights GST Fri, 07 Aug 2026 09:07:29 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102475