https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6669 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised where the petitioner has delayed approach to the Court, acquiesced in the proceedings, suppressed material facts, or has an adequate statutory appellate remedy. The High Court noted that the assessments had already been made, the petitioners had pursued appeals under the Income-tax Act, and the record indicated attempts to avoid service of the assessment order and demand notice. It held that even an allegation going to the root of jurisdiction does not by itself justify interference on the writ side when the dispute can be taken before the taxing authorities. The petitions were dismissed and the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction. en-us Fri, 01 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 01 Feb 2009 05:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6669 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised where the petitioner has delayed approach to the Court, acquiesced in the proceedings, suppressed material facts, or has an adequate statutory appellate remedy. The High Court noted that the assessments had already been made, the petitioners had pursued appeals under the Income-tax Act, and the record indicated attempts to avoid service of the assessment order and demand notice. It held that even an allegation going to the root of jurisdiction does not by itself justify interference on the writ side when the dispute can be taken before the taxing authorities. The petitions were dismissed and the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 01 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6669