https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200586 Disputed questions of fact regarding refusal of an import licence and import pass, including exemption from licensing requirements, whether Eau-de-cologne was unfit for use as intoxicating liquor, and allegations of mala fides, were held unsuitable for writ jurisdiction. The more appropriate course was to pursue the statutory appeal or revision under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, and the writ petitions were not entertained on merits. The pendency of the writ proceedings was treated as sufficient cause to condone delay in invoking those statutory remedies. en-us Fri, 07 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Apr 2018 13:22:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200586 Disputed questions of fact regarding refusal of an import licence and import pass, including exemption from licensing requirements, whether Eau-de-cologne was unfit for use as intoxicating liquor, and allegations of mala fides, were held unsuitable for writ jurisdiction. The more appropriate course was to pursue the statutory appeal or revision under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, and the writ petitions were not entertained on merits. The pendency of the writ proceedings was treated as sufficient cause to condone delay in invoking those statutory remedies. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200586