https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349487 Where an effective statutory appellate remedy exists in a fiscal dispute over rejection of refund and carry forward of input tax credit, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not to be invoked. The court applied the settled principle that an aggrieved party must first exhaust the remedy provided by statute, particularly when the Act itself provides an appellate route against the rejection order. On that basis, the writ appeal was held not maintainable and dismissed. en-us Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Oct 2017 09:16:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349487 Where an effective statutory appellate remedy exists in a fiscal dispute over rejection of refund and carry forward of input tax credit, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not to be invoked. The court applied the settled principle that an aggrieved party must first exhaust the remedy provided by statute, particularly when the Act itself provides an appellate route against the rejection order. On that basis, the writ appeal was held not maintainable and dismissed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349487