https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250492 Writ interference was declined where challenge to a penalty order and request for return of seized documents required consideration by the competent statutory authority. The Court noted the petitioner had approached belatedly and had not acted for years to secure return of the records, which undermined the claim for discretionary relief. In these circumstances, the writ court refused to substitute its view for the statutory process and dismissed the petition. The principle applied was that discretionary writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be exercised when the matter calls for determination under the relevant provisions and the petitioner has not shown due diligence in pursuing the relief. en-us Wed, 09 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:26:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250492 Writ interference was declined where challenge to a penalty order and request for return of seized documents required consideration by the competent statutory authority. The Court noted the petitioner had approached belatedly and had not acted for years to secure return of the records, which undermined the claim for discretionary relief. In these circumstances, the writ court refused to substitute its view for the statutory process and dismissed the petition. The principle applied was that discretionary writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be exercised when the matter calls for determination under the relevant provisions and the petitioner has not shown due diligence in pursuing the relief. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 09 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250492