https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171052 A writ petition challenging a royalty demand was held unsuitable for adjudication where the core dispute depended on whether the gypsum removed contained less than 85% CaSO42H20, a factual issue requiring evidence. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 was not the proper forum for resolving such contested facts. The existence of a civil suit on the same subject matter also weighed against writ relief, because parallel remedies could not be pursued simultaneously for the same dispute. The challenge to the royalty demand therefore failed. en-us Fri, 19 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jul 2015 14:20:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171052 A writ petition challenging a royalty demand was held unsuitable for adjudication where the core dispute depended on whether the gypsum removed contained less than 85% CaSO42H20, a factual issue requiring evidence. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 was not the proper forum for resolving such contested facts. The existence of a civil suit on the same subject matter also weighed against writ relief, because parallel remedies could not be pursued simultaneously for the same dispute. The challenge to the royalty demand therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171052