https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296799 A writ petition challenging an appellate order under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act was not entertained because an efficacious statutory second appeal was available under Section 57 before the Commissioner Tax Tribunal and had not been exhausted. The court held that issues concerning alleged inconsistency with the approved resolution plan and related tax consequences had already been examined by the authorities, so the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory appellate remedy first. The request for refund could be taken before the competent authorities in accordance with law, and the plea to avoid multiplicity of proceedings did not justify bypassing the appellate mechanism. en-us Mon, 06 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Nov 2021 14:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296799 A writ petition challenging an appellate order under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act was not entertained because an efficacious statutory second appeal was available under Section 57 before the Commissioner Tax Tribunal and had not been exhausted. The court held that issues concerning alleged inconsistency with the approved resolution plan and related tax consequences had already been examined by the authorities, so the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory appellate remedy first. The request for refund could be taken before the competent authorities in accordance with law, and the plea to avoid multiplicity of proceedings did not justify bypassing the appellate mechanism. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 06 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296799