https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257274 Writ relief was declined where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy existed and no exceptional ground justified bypassing it. On the contract characterisation, the Court treated the pipeline arrangements as divisible contracts because the documents and work orders separately identified supply of pipes and execution work; the pipe supply element was therefore taxable as a sale, with no legal error shown in the factual findings. The exemption notification dated 29.03.2001 was held prospective only, so it did not extend to assessment years prior to 2001-02. The Court left the assessment quantum issues to the statutory forum. en-us Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Mar 2015 07:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257274 Writ relief was declined where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy existed and no exceptional ground justified bypassing it. On the contract characterisation, the Court treated the pipeline arrangements as divisible contracts because the documents and work orders separately identified supply of pipes and execution work; the pipe supply element was therefore taxable as a sale, with no legal error shown in the factual findings. The exemption notification dated 29.03.2001 was held prospective only, so it did not extend to assessment years prior to 2001-02. The Court left the assessment quantum issues to the statutory forum. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257274