https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401618 Writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used to bypass an efficacious statutory appeal remedy in revenue matters. The Madras HC noted that the impugned order-in-original provided an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 129-A of the Finance Act, 1994, with condonation of delay available on sufficient cause. As the petitioner did not pursue that remedy and offered no acceptable reason for approaching the writ court directly, the Court declined to exercise Article 226 jurisdiction. The writ petition was therefore held not maintainable and the impugned order was left undisturbed. en-us Mon, 30 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Dec 2020 15:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401618 Writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used to bypass an efficacious statutory appeal remedy in revenue matters. The Madras HC noted that the impugned order-in-original provided an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 129-A of the Finance Act, 1994, with condonation of delay available on sufficient cause. As the petitioner did not pursue that remedy and offered no acceptable reason for approaching the writ court directly, the Court declined to exercise Article 226 jurisdiction. The writ petition was therefore held not maintainable and the impugned order was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 30 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401618