https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330385 An efficacious statutory appeal ordinarily bars a writ petition in revenue matters under Article 226, unless there is clear lack of jurisdiction, breach of fundamental rights, or a gross violation of natural justice. The alleged jurisdictional defect was not shown to be manifest, and the notification did not establish that pending notices had to be concluded only by the earlier officer. Non-consideration of one reply did not amount to total denial of hearing because the later reply was considered in detail, and the limitation objection remained a mixed question of law and fact suitable for the appellate forum. The challenge to penalty under section 114A also did not justify partial writ interference, so the petitioner was left to the statutory appellate remedy. en-us Fri, 15 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Nov 2016 11:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330385 An efficacious statutory appeal ordinarily bars a writ petition in revenue matters under Article 226, unless there is clear lack of jurisdiction, breach of fundamental rights, or a gross violation of natural justice. The alleged jurisdictional defect was not shown to be manifest, and the notification did not establish that pending notices had to be concluded only by the earlier officer. Non-consideration of one reply did not amount to total denial of hearing because the later reply was considered in detail, and the limitation objection remained a mixed question of law and fact suitable for the appellate forum. The challenge to penalty under section 114A also did not justify partial writ interference, so the petitioner was left to the statutory appellate remedy. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330385