Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
May 1, 1995, so that deduction would only be available for systems certified for the 1993 assessment year or earlier, and phased out the deduction entirely after the 1997 assessment year. P.L. 25-1995, SEC. 15. One effect of this amendment was that an RRS first certified in 1994 would no longer receive any deduction. Winski first argues that the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over its complaint because to exhaust its administrative remedies would be futile. The general rule is that a party is not entitled to judicial relief for an alleged or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted. Austin Lakes Joint Venture v. Avon Util., Inc., 648 N.E.2d 641, 644 (Ind.1995). Well recognized exceptions to the general rule requiring exhaust .1996). But see Bielski v. Zorn, 627 N.E.2d 880
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that constitutional challenge to controlled substance excise tax must pursue administrative routes followed by appeal in tax court
B. holding that state legislature should determine whether to cure discriminatory tax by enforcing tax as to all or forgiving tax in its entirety
C. holding that taxpayer was still required to go through tax refund procedure despite facial constitutional challenge to state intangibles tax
D. holding that the granting or denial of an urban renewal tax exemption is reviewable by tax appeal
E. holding texas franchise tax constitutional
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.