https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384970 Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate where the refund claim had already been accepted and only the interest component remained for determination. Because the interest dispute required factual scrutiny of supporting records, it was not suitable for adjudication on affidavits in writ proceedings. In fiscal matters, the alternate remedy rule applies with greater rigour, and the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory revisional remedy under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Court also noted that the petitioner could seek condonation of delay and exclusion of time before the revisional authority under principles akin to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. en-us Mon, 05 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Aug 2019 07:07:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384970 Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate where the refund claim had already been accepted and only the interest component remained for determination. Because the interest dispute required factual scrutiny of supporting records, it was not suitable for adjudication on affidavits in writ proceedings. In fiscal matters, the alternate remedy rule applies with greater rigour, and the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory revisional remedy under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The Court also noted that the petitioner could seek condonation of delay and exclusion of time before the revisional authority under principles akin to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 05 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384970