https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439663 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be used to bypass an efficacious statutory appeal or the mandatory pre-deposit condition under the MVAT Act. The Bombay HC held that the assessment and rejection of rectification were appealable, that the dispute over circular transactions and input tax credit turned on factual determinations better left to the appellate authority, and that the record disclosed repeated opportunities on the queries raised, so the alleged denial of hearing did not justify extraordinary interference. The petitioner was therefore relegated to the statutory appeal remedy. en-us Wed, 28 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Jun 2023 10:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439663 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be used to bypass an efficacious statutory appeal or the mandatory pre-deposit condition under the MVAT Act. The Bombay HC held that the assessment and rejection of rectification were appealable, that the dispute over circular transactions and input tax credit turned on factual determinations better left to the appellate authority, and that the record disclosed repeated opportunities on the queries raised, so the alleged denial of hearing did not justify extraordinary interference. The petitioner was therefore relegated to the statutory appeal remedy. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 28 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439663