https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159829 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be exercised in a tax matter where the statute provides an efficacious assessment and appellate mechanism; interference is justified only where the taxing action is without jurisdiction, so the writ petitions were not maintainable and the assessee was left to the statutory appeal. A notice under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act was upheld because it disclosed the reopening basis, minor defects in the prescribed form did not vitiate it, and the assessee had participated after receiving time and particulars. Transfer of the assessment file and the ensuing assessment orders were not found to violate natural justice, disclose bias, or show non-application of mind, so that challenge also failed. en-us Thu, 19 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:27:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159829 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be exercised in a tax matter where the statute provides an efficacious assessment and appellate mechanism; interference is justified only where the taxing action is without jurisdiction, so the writ petitions were not maintainable and the assessee was left to the statutory appeal. A notice under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act was upheld because it disclosed the reopening basis, minor defects in the prescribed form did not vitiate it, and the assessee had participated after receiving time and particulars. Transfer of the assessment file and the ensuing assessment orders were not found to violate natural justice, disclose bias, or show non-application of mind, so that challenge also failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 19 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159829