https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161559 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not invoked where the statute provides an efficacious alternative remedy. In this tax seizure context, the court noted that section 13-A(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 provided a representation-based statutory remedy, and no exceptional ground was shown. As no lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or challenge to the law's validity was established, interference was declined and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory forum. en-us Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Jan 2014 17:05:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161559 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not invoked where the statute provides an efficacious alternative remedy. In this tax seizure context, the court noted that section 13-A(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 provided a representation-based statutory remedy, and no exceptional ground was shown. As no lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or challenge to the law's validity was established, interference was declined and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory forum. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161559