https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335246 Alternative statutory remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction after the petition had been admitted, remained pending with interim protection, and could not appropriately be redirected to appellate proceedings. Penalty under a tax statute prescribing a maximum limit requires quasi-judicial discretion rather than automatic imposition at the maximum rate. Culpability, surrounding circumstances, gravity of alleged evasion, and mitigating material must be considered. The reduced penalty was sustained because relevant mitigating factors, including the recent vehicle purchase and intended quarry use, had not been adequately weighed, although post-interception creation of a document precluded complete exoneration. en-us Wed, 26 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335246 Alternative statutory remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction after the petition had been admitted, remained pending with interim protection, and could not appropriately be redirected to appellate proceedings. Penalty under a tax statute prescribing a maximum limit requires quasi-judicial discretion rather than automatic imposition at the maximum rate. Culpability, surrounding circumstances, gravity of alleged evasion, and mitigating material must be considered. The reduced penalty was sustained because relevant mitigating factors, including the recent vehicle purchase and intended quarry use, had not been adequately weighed, although post-interception creation of a document precluded complete exoneration. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 26 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335246