https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153527 Where the same interpretative question regarding a notification issued under section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 was already pending in appeals before the appellate authority, the High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court applied judicial restraint and held that it should not pre-empt the appellate forum by deciding the notification's scope while the identical controversy was under appeal. The petitioners' validity challenge to the notification was not pressed, and the writ petitions were dismissed, leaving the appellate process to determine the issue. en-us Mon, 24 May 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:10:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153527 Where the same interpretative question regarding a notification issued under section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 was already pending in appeals before the appellate authority, the High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court applied judicial restraint and held that it should not pre-empt the appellate forum by deciding the notification's scope while the identical controversy was under appeal. The petitioners' validity challenge to the notification was not pressed, and the writ petitions were dismissed, leaving the appellate process to determine the issue. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 24 May 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153527