https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313779 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held inappropriate where the petitioner had an available appellate remedy before the Tribunal against the impugned order. The Court observed that interim protection could be sought from the Tribunal, or the pending appeal could be pressed for early disposal. It therefore declined to entertain the writ petition and relegated the petitioner to the appellate remedy, while directing that a request for expeditious disposal or interim relief could be made before the Tribunal. en-us Thu, 09 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 May 2024 19:54:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313779 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held inappropriate where the petitioner had an available appellate remedy before the Tribunal against the impugned order. The Court observed that interim protection could be sought from the Tribunal, or the pending appeal could be pressed for early disposal. It therefore declined to entertain the writ petition and relegated the petitioner to the appellate remedy, while directing that a request for expeditious disposal or interim relief could be made before the Tribunal. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 09 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313779