https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193845 Where an appellate remedy exists under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not entertained for non-exhaustion of that remedy, but the Court recognised the hardship caused by the pre-deposit requirement. It directed the petitioner to approach the Special Commissioner within the stipulated time, treated the appeal or objections as filed within limitation, required them to be heard on merits, and restrained insistence on pre-deposit and coercive recovery during pursuit of the statutory remedy. en-us Wed, 15 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Aug 2017 08:10:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193845 Where an appellate remedy exists under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not entertained for non-exhaustion of that remedy, but the Court recognised the hardship caused by the pre-deposit requirement. It directed the petitioner to approach the Special Commissioner within the stipulated time, treated the appeal or objections as filed within limitation, required them to be heard on merits, and restrained insistence on pre-deposit and coercive recovery during pursuit of the statutory remedy. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 15 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193845