https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312483 A benamidar, lacking beneficial ownership, cannot ordinarily use Article 226 to challenge recovery orders where the real owners are themselves in dispute and the matter turns on contested title and interest better tried in a regular suit. The availability of adequate statutory remedies under the revenue law, together with the option of a civil suit, normally justifies ? Wait no. The writ jurisdiction remains discretionary and exceptional, and will usually not be exercised absent a fundamental-right violation, patent lack of jurisdiction, or immediate legal injury that cannot be addressed through ordinary remedies. On that basis, the commentary states that relief under Article 226 is generally refused in such circumstances. en-us Wed, 19 Feb 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Feb 2024 11:44:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312483 A benamidar, lacking beneficial ownership, cannot ordinarily use Article 226 to challenge recovery orders where the real owners are themselves in dispute and the matter turns on contested title and interest better tried in a regular suit. The availability of adequate statutory remedies under the revenue law, together with the option of a civil suit, normally justifies ? Wait no. The writ jurisdiction remains discretionary and exceptional, and will usually not be exercised absent a fundamental-right violation, patent lack of jurisdiction, or immediate legal injury that cannot be addressed through ordinary remedies. On that basis, the commentary states that relief under Article 226 is generally refused in such circumstances. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Feb 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312483