https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333484 The High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that the petitioner firm could not maintain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it had already filed a statutory appeal challenging the assessment order. The court emphasized the principle that once a party chooses a remedy, it must follow through with that remedy and cannot pursue multiple remedies in different forums for the same subject matter. The court's decision was based on established legal precedents and public policy considerations to avoid conflicting judgments and unnecessary litigation. en-us Thu, 06 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Aug 2017 15:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333484 The High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that the petitioner firm could not maintain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it had already filed a statutory appeal challenging the assessment order. The court emphasized the principle that once a party chooses a remedy, it must follow through with that remedy and cannot pursue multiple remedies in different forums for the same subject matter. The court's decision was based on established legal precedents and public policy considerations to avoid conflicting judgments and unnecessary litigation. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 06 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333484