https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106391 A writ petition challenging a taxing notification on the ground that it lacked authority and operated retrospectively could not be rejected merely because an appellate remedy existed. When the challenge goes to jurisdiction, including whether the notification could validly operate with retrospective effect, the High Court must examine the jurisdictional fact under Article 226 rather than decline relief on the alternative-remedy rule. The refusal to entertain the writ petition was therefore erroneous, and the writ remedy remained available for adjudication on merits. en-us Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Oct 2015 17:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106391 A writ petition challenging a taxing notification on the ground that it lacked authority and operated retrospectively could not be rejected merely because an appellate remedy existed. When the challenge goes to jurisdiction, including whether the notification could validly operate with retrospective effect, the High Court must examine the jurisdictional fact under Article 226 rather than decline relief on the alternative-remedy rule. The refusal to entertain the writ petition was therefore erroneous, and the writ remedy remained available for adjudication on merits. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106391