https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106075 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not ordinarily be used to bypass an available statutory remedy under the Orissa Sales Tax Act and Rules, especially where disputed questions of fact require examination by the assessing authority. The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition and quashing the show-cause notice without considering an earlier binding Division Bench view on the same issue. Judicial discipline required the earlier decision to be followed. The High Court's order was set aside, the notice revived, and the assessee was directed to respond before the statutory authority. en-us Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Sep 2022 19:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106075 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not ordinarily be used to bypass an available statutory remedy under the Orissa Sales Tax Act and Rules, especially where disputed questions of fact require examination by the assessing authority. The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition and quashing the show-cause notice without considering an earlier binding Division Bench view on the same issue. Judicial discipline required the earlier decision to be followed. The High Court's order was set aside, the notice revived, and the assessee was directed to respond before the statutory authority. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106075