https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163616 Article 226 writ jurisdiction is discretionary and is ordinarily not exercised to interfere with an assessment order when an effective statutory appeal is available. An allegation that an earlier court order was not complied with did not justify bypassing the appellate remedy. The statutory pre-deposit requirement of 25% of the disputed tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was treated as mandatory, and the court declined to dilute or dispense with it in writ proceedings. The writ petition was therefore held not maintainable, and the request to direct the appellate authority to entertain the appeal without the prescribed pre-deposit was rejected. en-us Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Apr 2014 14:25:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163616 Article 226 writ jurisdiction is discretionary and is ordinarily not exercised to interfere with an assessment order when an effective statutory appeal is available. An allegation that an earlier court order was not complied with did not justify bypassing the appellate remedy. The statutory pre-deposit requirement of 25% of the disputed tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was treated as mandatory, and the court declined to dilute or dispense with it in writ proceedings. The writ petition was therefore held not maintainable, and the request to direct the appellate authority to entertain the appeal without the prescribed pre-deposit was rejected. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163616