https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163846 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held unavailable to challenge assessment and penalty orders under the Value Added Tax Act, 2005 where the statute provided a complete appellate and revisional framework, including appeal, revision, review and further appeal. The 25% pre-deposit condition for appeal was not treated as so onerous as to make the remedy ineffective. Because the assessing authority had jurisdiction and no violation of natural justice was shown, the recognised exceptions to the alternative-remedy rule did not apply. Even an allegedly erroneous assessment did not amount to a jurisdictional defect, and the dispute had to be pursued in the statutory forum. en-us Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Dec 2014 12:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163846 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held unavailable to challenge assessment and penalty orders under the Value Added Tax Act, 2005 where the statute provided a complete appellate and revisional framework, including appeal, revision, review and further appeal. The 25% pre-deposit condition for appeal was not treated as so onerous as to make the remedy ineffective. Because the assessing authority had jurisdiction and no violation of natural justice was shown, the recognised exceptions to the alternative-remedy rule did not apply. Even an allegedly erroneous assessment did not amount to a jurisdictional defect, and the dispute had to be pursued in the statutory forum. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163846