https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44980 The writ petition was dismissed because the petitioner had alternative statutory remedies under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The decision reflects the principle that where an adequate statutory remedy is available, the High Court will ordinarily not intervene in writ proceedings. As a result, the petitioner was left to pursue the remedies provided by the statute. en-us Tue, 06 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:19:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44980 The writ petition was dismissed because the petitioner had alternative statutory remedies under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The decision reflects the principle that where an adequate statutory remedy is available, the High Court will ordinarily not intervene in writ proceedings. As a result, the petitioner was left to pursue the remedies provided by the statute. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 06 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44980