https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457460 A writ petition challenging an order under the Customs Act was held not maintainable where the petitioner had already pursued the statutory appellate remedy and another appeal remained available before the CESTAT. The Court applied the settled principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked when the statute provides an effective remedy for enforcement of the right, particularly after the party has chosen the statutory mechanism and an adverse appellate order has been passed. The writ petition was dismissed in view of the unexhausted appellate remedy under the Customs Act, 1962. en-us Wed, 24 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Sep 2024 20:17:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457460 A writ petition challenging an order under the Customs Act was held not maintainable where the petitioner had already pursued the statutory appellate remedy and another appeal remained available before the CESTAT. The Court applied the settled principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked when the statute provides an effective remedy for enforcement of the right, particularly after the party has chosen the statutory mechanism and an adverse appellate order has been passed. The writ petition was dismissed in view of the unexhausted appellate remedy under the Customs Act, 1962. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 24 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457460