https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234285 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised where an efficacious statutory remedy is available under the VAT regime. Recognised exceptions include enforcement of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, actions wholly without jurisdiction, or a challenge to the vires of the enactment. Applying that principle, the Court found an effective and speedy remedy under Section 59 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008, and held that no sufficient exception was established to bypass the statutory appeal mechanism. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. en-us Fri, 31 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jul 2014 12:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234285 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised where an efficacious statutory remedy is available under the VAT regime. Recognised exceptions include enforcement of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, actions wholly without jurisdiction, or a challenge to the vires of the enactment. Applying that principle, the Court found an effective and speedy remedy under Section 59 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008, and held that no sufficient exception was established to bypass the statutory appeal mechanism. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 31 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234285