<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (12) TMI 921 - Allahabad High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174325</link>
    <description>Where an admitted statutory revision lies before the Central Government, the High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction. The petitioner conceded the availability of that alternative remedy, and on that basis the writ petition was dismissed without adjudicating any other legal or factual controversy. The operative principle reflected in the text is that the existence of an effective statutory revisional remedy can justify refusal to entertain a writ petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2015 13:28:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400212" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 921 - Allahabad High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174325</link>
      <description>Where an admitted statutory revision lies before the Central Government, the High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction. The petitioner conceded the availability of that alternative remedy, and on that basis the writ petition was dismissed without adjudicating any other legal or factual controversy. The operative principle reflected in the text is that the existence of an effective statutory revisional remedy can justify refusal to entertain a writ petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>