https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158751 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held ordinarily unavailable where the statute provides an efficacious alternative appeal under Section 39 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The High Court reiterated that the existence of an effective statutory remedy forms part of the legislative scheme and should normally be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction. The requirement of pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal was not treated as a sufficient reason to bypass the appellate forum. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal. en-us Mon, 09 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Nov 2013 15:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158751 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held ordinarily unavailable where the statute provides an efficacious alternative appeal under Section 39 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The High Court reiterated that the existence of an effective statutory remedy forms part of the legislative scheme and should normally be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction. The requirement of pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal was not treated as a sufficient reason to bypass the appellate forum. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 09 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158751