https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127801 The court held that the petitioner could not prosecute the petition against the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax's order at this stage, as the petitioner had another remedy available under section 22 of the Sales Tax Act, which had not been exhausted. The court emphasized that the previous judgment directing the petitioner to exhaust remedies was binding, and the petitioner could not argue otherwise. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the remarks in another case did not affect the current decision, and the petitioner was bound to follow the directives in the previous judgment regarding exhausting remedies. en-us Wed, 09 Jul 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:51:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127801 The court held that the petitioner could not prosecute the petition against the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax's order at this stage, as the petitioner had another remedy available under section 22 of the Sales Tax Act, which had not been exhausted. The court emphasized that the previous judgment directing the petitioner to exhaust remedies was binding, and the petitioner could not argue otherwise. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the remarks in another case did not affect the current decision, and the petitioner was bound to follow the directives in the previous judgment regarding exhausting remedies. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 09 Jul 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127801