https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166426 The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that despite the availability of an alternate statutory remedy, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked once the statutory period for filing an appeal has lapsed. Emphasizing that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 should be sparingly exercised, the court concluded that no exceptional circumstances existed in the case to warrant interference. The petitioner's failure to utilize the statutory remedy within the prescribed period led to the dismissal of the petitions, as the court cannot revive an unenforceable cause of action through Article 226. en-us Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Oct 2014 13:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166426 The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that despite the availability of an alternate statutory remedy, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked once the statutory period for filing an appeal has lapsed. Emphasizing that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 should be sparingly exercised, the court concluded that no exceptional circumstances existed in the case to warrant interference. The petitioner's failure to utilize the statutory remedy within the prescribed period led to the dismissal of the petitions, as the court cannot revive an unenforceable cause of action through Article 226. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166426