https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153914 A writ petition challenging distraint and recovery proceedings was held not maintainable because the affidavit did not state the grounds of attack with precision and specificity. In Article 226 proceedings, objections must be clear, explicit, and properly pleaded so that the Court and the opposite party can answer them; vague, ambiguous, and jumbled allegations are insufficient to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction. As the petitioner's objections to the distraint order, the quantum of tax, and non-adjustment of payment were not specifically raised in the affidavit, the writ challenge failed and was dismissed. en-us Fri, 23 Apr 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Aug 2013 15:57:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153914 A writ petition challenging distraint and recovery proceedings was held not maintainable because the affidavit did not state the grounds of attack with precision and specificity. In Article 226 proceedings, objections must be clear, explicit, and properly pleaded so that the Court and the opposite party can answer them; vague, ambiguous, and jumbled allegations are insufficient to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction. As the petitioner's objections to the distraint order, the quantum of tax, and non-adjustment of payment were not specifically raised in the affidavit, the writ challenge failed and was dismissed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 23 Apr 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153914