https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288976 The amended Article 226 did not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned trade notice and consequential directions were prima facie without authority, not appealable under the Act, and issued without hearing. Article 226(3) was applied only when an adequate and efficacious remedy is specifically provided by the law governing the challenged action; a general civil suit or a futile challenge to a nullity is insufficient. The distinction between a real order and a purported order was material: actions ex facie without jurisdiction, contrary to statute, or in breach of natural justice may be treated as nullities and challenged directly in writ. The petitions therefore did not abate under the Forty-second Amendment provisions. en-us Wed, 13 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jul 2020 15:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288976 The amended Article 226 did not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned trade notice and consequential directions were prima facie without authority, not appealable under the Act, and issued without hearing. Article 226(3) was applied only when an adequate and efficacious remedy is specifically provided by the law governing the challenged action; a general civil suit or a futile challenge to a nullity is insufficient. The distinction between a real order and a purported order was material: actions ex facie without jurisdiction, contrary to statute, or in breach of natural justice may be treated as nullities and challenged directly in writ. The petitions therefore did not abate under the Forty-second Amendment provisions. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288976