https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758154 The writ petition challenging a penalty order under the M.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2002 was held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory remedy remained available. The petitioner had already pursued the appellate hierarchy, and the Court noted that a further statutory appeal existed. It also observed that the High Court may, in an appropriate case, examine issues not decided or wrongly decided by the Appellate Board under Section 53(6)(a) and (6)(b). On that basis, extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not to be invoked where the alternative statutory remedy had not been exhausted. en-us Mon, 02 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Sep 2024 08:24:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758154 The writ petition challenging a penalty order under the M.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2002 was held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory remedy remained available. The petitioner had already pursued the appellate hierarchy, and the Court noted that a further statutory appeal existed. It also observed that the High Court may, in an appropriate case, examine issues not decided or wrongly decided by the Appellate Board under Section 53(6)(a) and (6)(b). On that basis, extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not to be invoked where the alternative statutory remedy had not been exhausted. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Mon, 02 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758154