<?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>2008 (12) TMI 732 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174674</link>
    <description>Availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not by itself bar writ jurisdiction. Where the challenge includes the vires of a statutory provision, an alleged jurisdictional error, or issues the alternative forum cannot competently decide, the High Court should not decline relief solely on the ground of remedy availability. The statutory appellate or revisional authority is not an efficacious forum for constitutional validity questions, and the writ court ought to examine the matter on merits in such circumstances. The High Court was therefore not justified in refusing to entertain the writ petition, and the matter was required to be reconsidered on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2016 17:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=401436" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 732 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174674</link>
      <description>Availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not by itself bar writ jurisdiction. Where the challenge includes the vires of a statutory provision, an alleged jurisdictional error, or issues the alternative forum cannot competently decide, the High Court should not decline relief solely on the ground of remedy availability. The statutory appellate or revisional authority is not an efficacious forum for constitutional validity questions, and the writ court ought to examine the matter on merits in such circumstances. The High Court was therefore not justified in refusing to entertain the writ petition, and the matter was required to be reconsidered on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174674</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>