TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging an advance ruling under the Customs Act was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy under Section 28-KA of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: The impugned order concerned the classification of goods decided by the Advance Ruling Authority under the Customs Act. The Court followed its earlier decision holding that a writ petition against such an order is not maintainable when the statute provides an appellate remedy. The availability of the statutory appeal was treated as an effective bar to invoking writ jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be not maintainable because the petitioner had a statutory appellate remedy under Section 28-KA of the Customs Act, 1962.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
