https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345490 The court acknowledged the rule of alternate remedy but stated that in exceptional cases like violation of natural justice principles or lack of jurisdiction, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could be exercised. The court found that the petitioner had shown good faith by offering to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs and decided to grant another opportunity for the petitioner to represent themselves before the Authority. Ultimately, the court quashed the impugned order, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs within three months, subject to the decision in the proceedings before the Authority, and ordered the Authority to decide the show-cause notice afresh promptly upon the deposit. Failure to comply with the deposit condition would result in the original order standing. The court partially allowed the Writ Petition. en-us Fri, 07 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jul 2017 10:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345490 The court acknowledged the rule of alternate remedy but stated that in exceptional cases like violation of natural justice principles or lack of jurisdiction, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could be exercised. The court found that the petitioner had shown good faith by offering to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs and decided to grant another opportunity for the petitioner to represent themselves before the Authority. Ultimately, the court quashed the impugned order, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs within three months, subject to the decision in the proceedings before the Authority, and ordered the Authority to decide the show-cause notice afresh promptly upon the deposit. Failure to comply with the deposit condition would result in the original order standing. The court partially allowed the Writ Petition. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 07 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345490