https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305404 A writ petition challenging cancellation of a private treaty arrangement under the Securitisation Act was held not maintainable because the dispute arose from proceedings under Sections 13 and 14 and the Act provides a statutory appellate mechanism before the DRT and, further, the Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that where the Tribunal has jurisdiction to address the grievance, extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised. The petitioner was therefore relegated to the statutory remedy, while the issue of refund of the amount paid to the Commercial Tax Department was left open to be raised before the appropriate forum. en-us Tue, 13 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Dec 2022 05:00:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305404 A writ petition challenging cancellation of a private treaty arrangement under the Securitisation Act was held not maintainable because the dispute arose from proceedings under Sections 13 and 14 and the Act provides a statutory appellate mechanism before the DRT and, further, the Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that where the Tribunal has jurisdiction to address the grievance, extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised. The petitioner was therefore relegated to the statutory remedy, while the issue of refund of the amount paid to the Commercial Tax Department was left open to be raised before the appropriate forum. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 13 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305404