https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=129016 Article 226 writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used to revisit an enhanced penalty order in routine tax matters where an effective statutory revision remedy exists and has been invoked. Interference on the writ side is justified only in exceptional cases involving a jurisdictional defect or grave and palpable injustice. Because the petitioner had already pursued the statutory revision framework, the High Court declined to examine the merits of the penalty dispute in writ proceedings and left the parties to the available statutory remedy. en-us Tue, 27 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:54:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=129016 Article 226 writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used to revisit an enhanced penalty order in routine tax matters where an effective statutory revision remedy exists and has been invoked. Interference on the writ side is justified only in exceptional cases involving a jurisdictional defect or grave and palpable injustice. Because the petitioner had already pursued the statutory revision framework, the High Court declined to examine the merits of the penalty dispute in writ proceedings and left the parties to the available statutory remedy. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 27 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=129016