https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24998 A writ challenge to a rectification order was refused where a statutory appeal under the Estate Duty Act was available, as the existence of an adequate alternate remedy ordinarily justified non-interference under Article 226. Interest at 6% on unpaid estate duty demand was upheld because the statute authorised interest and no arbitrariness or lack of authority was shown. A mandamus for separate challans was rejected because estate duty liability was joint and several and recoverable from one or both accountable persons. However, interest for belated filing of the return was disallowed because the Act permitted it only when time was extended on terms including interest, and no such order existed. en-us Wed, 10 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:40:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24998 A writ challenge to a rectification order was refused where a statutory appeal under the Estate Duty Act was available, as the existence of an adequate alternate remedy ordinarily justified non-interference under Article 226. Interest at 6% on unpaid estate duty demand was upheld because the statute authorised interest and no arbitrariness or lack of authority was shown. A mandamus for separate challans was rejected because estate duty liability was joint and several and recoverable from one or both accountable persons. However, interest for belated filing of the return was disallowed because the Act permitted it only when time was extended on terms including interest, and no such order existed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24998