https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385446 Public interest jurisdiction cannot be used to advance grievances of dealers or assessees who can pursue their own statutory remedies. The article notes that a practicing Chartered Accountant lacked locus to maintain a PIL on their behalf, and that vague objections to deletion of section 29(5), the appellate hierarchy, and tribunal constitution under the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005 did not justify public law interference. It also records that generalized complaints based on newspaper reports about non-implementation of Lokayukta orders were insufficient to invoke PIL. The petition was therefore not maintainable at the threshold. en-us Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Sep 2019 09:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385446 Public interest jurisdiction cannot be used to advance grievances of dealers or assessees who can pursue their own statutory remedies. The article notes that a practicing Chartered Accountant lacked locus to maintain a PIL on their behalf, and that vague objections to deletion of section 29(5), the appellate hierarchy, and tribunal constitution under the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005 did not justify public law interference. It also records that generalized complaints based on newspaper reports about non-implementation of Lokayukta orders were insufficient to invoke PIL. The petition was therefore not maintainable at the threshold. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385446