<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1988 (1) TMI 332 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155274</link>
    <description>A writ of prohibition is generally unavailable where an adequate statutory remedy exists, unless there is a patent lack of jurisdiction, constitutional infirmity, or infringement of fundamental rights. Here, the petitioner had not pursued the available remedy before the Deputy Commissioner, and the objections raised concerned the merits of taxability, including the distinction between timber and firewood and the applicability of sales tax provisions. Those issues were held to be matters for the competent statutory forum, not for writ intervention. The writ petitions were therefore not maintainable for failure to exhaust the statutory remedy and were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2013 18:11:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172305" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (1) TMI 332 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155274</link>
      <description>A writ of prohibition is generally unavailable where an adequate statutory remedy exists, unless there is a patent lack of jurisdiction, constitutional infirmity, or infringement of fundamental rights. Here, the petitioner had not pursued the available remedy before the Deputy Commissioner, and the objections raised concerned the merits of taxability, including the distinction between timber and firewood and the applicability of sales tax provisions. Those issues were held to be matters for the competent statutory forum, not for writ intervention. The writ petitions were therefore not maintainable for failure to exhaust the statutory remedy and were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155274</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>