https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371791 The High Court declined to invoke its extraordinary original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing the availability of alternative statutory remedies. The court found that the petitioners did not present exceptional circumstances to bypass the alternative remedy, as required by precedent. Additionally, the court noted that issues such as limitation and intricate interpretation of statutory provisions are better addressed by statutory authorities rather than through Article 226 proceedings. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petitions, ruling in favor of maintaining the rule of alternative remedy. en-us Thu, 06 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Dec 2018 08:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371791 The High Court declined to invoke its extraordinary original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing the availability of alternative statutory remedies. The court found that the petitioners did not present exceptional circumstances to bypass the alternative remedy, as required by precedent. Additionally, the court noted that issues such as limitation and intricate interpretation of statutory provisions are better addressed by statutory authorities rather than through Article 226 proceedings. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petitions, ruling in favor of maintaining the rule of alternative remedy. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 06 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371791