https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163584 Writ jurisdiction was considered unavailable where taxpayers challenged provisional attachment, bank account freezing and recovery notices under the VAT Act while ignoring repeated statutory notices to produce records and attend assessment. The statutory scheme provided provisional assessment, revenue-protective attachment and third-party recovery measures, and also supplied appeal and revision remedies. Because those remedies were available and the petitioners had not cooperated with the assessment process, the court declined to bypass the statutory framework under Article 226. The challenge to the impugned notices and provisional attachment therefore failed and the writ petitions were not entertained. en-us Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Nov 2014 09:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163584 Writ jurisdiction was considered unavailable where taxpayers challenged provisional attachment, bank account freezing and recovery notices under the VAT Act while ignoring repeated statutory notices to produce records and attend assessment. The statutory scheme provided provisional assessment, revenue-protective attachment and third-party recovery measures, and also supplied appeal and revision remedies. Because those remedies were available and the petitioners had not cooperated with the assessment process, the court declined to bypass the statutory framework under Article 226. The challenge to the impugned notices and provisional attachment therefore failed and the writ petitions were not entertained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163584