https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159495 Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 was declined because the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy by way of appeal or revision against the assessment penalty order. The Court applied the settled principle that writ relief should ordinarily not be invoked when the statute provides an adequate appellate or revisional mechanism. The impugned order was left to be challenged before the appropriate statutory authority, and the petitioner was permitted to pursue that remedy within the stipulated time for decision on merits in accordance with law. en-us Fri, 23 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:12:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159495 Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 was declined because the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy by way of appeal or revision against the assessment penalty order. The Court applied the settled principle that writ relief should ordinarily not be invoked when the statute provides an adequate appellate or revisional mechanism. The impugned order was left to be challenged before the appropriate statutory authority, and the petitioner was permitted to pursue that remedy within the stipulated time for decision on merits in accordance with law. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 23 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159495