https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45781 A writ petitioner could not secure relief by relying on a clerical misdescription in an excise order where the proceedings had throughout been directed against him as the licensee. The High Court treated the mention of the petitioner's father's name as an accidental typing error and found no proof that the father was the licensee. It also noted that the challenge was highly belated and reaffirmed that Article 226 relief is discretionary and equitable, so a litigant cannot invoke a mere technical mistake after long delay to obtain relief. The petition was therefore unsuccessful. en-us Tue, 16 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:31:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45781 A writ petitioner could not secure relief by relying on a clerical misdescription in an excise order where the proceedings had throughout been directed against him as the licensee. The High Court treated the mention of the petitioner's father's name as an accidental typing error and found no proof that the father was the licensee. It also noted that the challenge was highly belated and reaffirmed that Article 226 relief is discretionary and equitable, so a litigant cannot invoke a mere technical mistake after long delay to obtain relief. The petition was therefore unsuccessful. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45781