https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796633 GST demand challenges should ordinarily proceed through the statutory appellate mechanism rather than writ jurisdiction where an efficacious remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal exists. Article 226 jurisdiction is discretionary and is generally unsuitable for disputes requiring detailed examination of evidence. An inspection-authorising officer's later appellate role does not by itself establish bias, because inspection authorisation is distinct from adjudicatory functions. Allegations concerning suppressed sales, estimated turnover, tax rates, and reconciliation of bank deposits, returns, and seized records require evidentiary assessment. Writ intervention is not warranted absent established denial of natural justice, jurisdictional error, bias, or other exceptional grounds. en-us Tue, 04 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Aug 2026 09:07:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796633 GST demand challenges should ordinarily proceed through the statutory appellate mechanism rather than writ jurisdiction where an efficacious remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal exists. Article 226 jurisdiction is discretionary and is generally unsuitable for disputes requiring detailed examination of evidence. An inspection-authorising officer's later appellate role does not by itself establish bias, because inspection authorisation is distinct from adjudicatory functions. Allegations concerning suppressed sales, estimated turnover, tax rates, and reconciliation of bank deposits, returns, and seized records require evidentiary assessment. Writ intervention is not warranted absent established denial of natural justice, jurisdictional error, bias, or other exceptional grounds. Case-Laws GST Tue, 04 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796633