https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106676 The governing procedure barred acceptance of affidavit evidence where a party sought production of a witness for cross-examination and the witness was producible, so the Tribunal had to require oral examination and could not rely on the affidavit instead. The existence of an appellate remedy did not by itself exclude writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, particularly where the impugned orders reflected a grave procedural error and failed to give real reasons. The Tribunal's orders were therefore set aside, and the matter was directed to proceed in accordance with the rule requiring witness production and examination. en-us Tue, 05 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:10:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106676 The governing procedure barred acceptance of affidavit evidence where a party sought production of a witness for cross-examination and the witness was producible, so the Tribunal had to require oral examination and could not rely on the affidavit instead. The existence of an appellate remedy did not by itself exclude writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, particularly where the impugned orders reflected a grave procedural error and failed to give real reasons. The Tribunal's orders were therefore set aside, and the matter was directed to proceed in accordance with the rule requiring witness production and examination. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 05 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106676