https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127211 A writ petition under Article 226 was treated as premature where the assessee had not yet filed the return and no tax demand had arisen. A writ of prohibition was held to be unavailable in that situation, and mandamus was also inappropriate because it is not ordinarily issued before the petitioner has taken the step on which the authority's action depends. The court treated the statutory sequence of return, assessment, appeal and further recourse as an adequate ordinary remedy, which Article 226 was not meant to replace. The challenge to the amended explanation was left academic for disposal of the petition. en-us Fri, 25 Apr 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Mar 2013 15:41:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127211 A writ petition under Article 226 was treated as premature where the assessee had not yet filed the return and no tax demand had arisen. A writ of prohibition was held to be unavailable in that situation, and mandamus was also inappropriate because it is not ordinarily issued before the petitioner has taken the step on which the authority's action depends. The court treated the statutory sequence of return, assessment, appeal and further recourse as an adequate ordinary remedy, which Article 226 was not meant to replace. The challenge to the amended explanation was left academic for disposal of the petition. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 25 Apr 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127211