https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294186 A writ petition challenging a compounding fee order was held not maintainable because the statutory revision remedy under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 had not been pursued within the prescribed time, and only a limited extension was available on sufficient cause. Once that order attained finality through non-challenge within the maximum permissible period, the High Court declined to examine the merits under Article 226 and dismissed the petition, applying the settled restraint against bypassing the statutory remedy. en-us Tue, 08 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Nov 2024 14:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294186 A writ petition challenging a compounding fee order was held not maintainable because the statutory revision remedy under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 had not been pursued within the prescribed time, and only a limited extension was available on sufficient cause. Once that order attained finality through non-challenge within the maximum permissible period, the High Court declined to examine the merits under Article 226 and dismissed the petition, applying the settled restraint against bypassing the statutory remedy. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Tue, 08 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294186