https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233621 Writ jurisdiction was declined where an alternative statutory remedy was available and the grievance against property attachment did not justify interference under Article 226. The Court treated the challenge as distinct from earlier directions, held that no vested right existed to insist on a private sale of the attached property, and accepted only that permission could be sought from the competent authority for sale. On that basis, interference with the recovery proceedings was found unwarranted and the appeal was not entertained on merits. en-us Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 May 2013 05:41:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233621 Writ jurisdiction was declined where an alternative statutory remedy was available and the grievance against property attachment did not justify interference under Article 226. The Court treated the challenge as distinct from earlier directions, held that no vested right existed to insist on a private sale of the attached property, and accepted only that permission could be sought from the competent authority for sale. On that basis, interference with the recovery proceedings was found unwarranted and the appeal was not entertained on merits. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233621