https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343379 Writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used to bypass an efficacious statutory appeal, and the challenge to the forfeiture order under the NDPS Act was therefore not maintainable because the alleged insufficiency of evidence could be raised before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 68-O. The Court found no exceptional ground such as lack of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice to justify interference. A challenge to the show cause notice under Section 68-H(1) also failed because the notice was only an intermediate step in the adjudicatory process, no prima facie jurisdictional defect or abuse of process was shown, and the petition had become infructuous after the final order was passed. en-us Fri, 05 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 May 2017 07:05:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343379 Writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used to bypass an efficacious statutory appeal, and the challenge to the forfeiture order under the NDPS Act was therefore not maintainable because the alleged insufficiency of evidence could be raised before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 68-O. The Court found no exceptional ground such as lack of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice to justify interference. A challenge to the show cause notice under Section 68-H(1) also failed because the notice was only an intermediate step in the adjudicatory process, no prima facie jurisdictional defect or abuse of process was shown, and the petition had become infructuous after the final order was passed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 05 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343379