Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
The court addressed whether extraordinary writ relief was maintainable where an alternate statutory remedy with a pre-deposit exists and whether the impugned order was time-barred or tainted by denial of natural justice; factual mixed-questions (service, exemption status, limitation) required adjudication and did not justify bypassing the statutory remedy. The statutory pre-deposit requirement was held not to render the remedy inefficacious. Consequently the writ was declined; petitioner directed to file the prescribed statutory appeal within six weeks after complying with pre-conditions including pre-deposit, and the appellate authority must decide the appeal on merits without disputing limitation. - HC
The court addressed whether extraordinary writ relief was maintainable where an alternate statutory remedy with a pre-deposit exists and whether the impugned order was time-barred or tainted by denial of natural justice; factual mixed-questions (service, exemption status, limitation) required adjudication and did not justify bypassing the statutory remedy. The statutory pre-deposit requirement was held not to render the remedy inefficacious. Consequently the writ was declined; petitioner directed to file the prescribed statutory appeal within six weeks after complying with pre-conditions including pre-deposit, and the appellate authority must decide the appeal on merits without disputing limitation. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
