https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109742 The limitation period under the taxing statute was treated as binding on all dealers and could not be bypassed through Article 226 simply because the statutory appeal was filed late. The Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised cautiously and cannot override a clear statutory bar on condonation of delay. Reasons such as illness of the person in charge and the shortness of the delay were held insufficient to displace the statutory limitation scheme. The Court also accepted that a special law may exclude the Limitation Act where the statutory scheme so indicates, and substantial justice could not justify rewriting the statute. en-us Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 May 2012 16:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109742 The limitation period under the taxing statute was treated as binding on all dealers and could not be bypassed through Article 226 simply because the statutory appeal was filed late. The Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised cautiously and cannot override a clear statutory bar on condonation of delay. Reasons such as illness of the person in charge and the shortness of the delay were held insufficient to displace the statutory limitation scheme. The Court also accepted that a special law may exclude the Limitation Act where the statutory scheme so indicates, and substantial justice could not justify rewriting the statute. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109742