https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43954 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held inappropriate for quashing assessment and show-cause proceedings where the assessee had already pursued an efficacious statutory appeal and the notice had merged in the assessment order. The challenge to those proceedings was therefore declined. By contrast, discretion under the proviso to Section 35F had to be exercised on the basis of undue hardship, the assessee's financial position, the amount involved, and whether the appeal disclosed a prima facie arguable case. As those factors were not properly considered, the pre-deposit direction was set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration in accordance with law. en-us Thu, 29 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:55:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43954 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held inappropriate for quashing assessment and show-cause proceedings where the assessee had already pursued an efficacious statutory appeal and the notice had merged in the assessment order. The challenge to those proceedings was therefore declined. By contrast, discretion under the proviso to Section 35F had to be exercised on the basis of undue hardship, the assessee's financial position, the amount involved, and whether the appeal disclosed a prima facie arguable case. As those factors were not properly considered, the pre-deposit direction was set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration in accordance with law. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43954