<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (1) TMI 199 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784443</link>
    <description>A writ challenge to an adjudication order under the CGST Act was declined because the order was appealable under the Act&#039;s statutory appellate scheme. The court treated the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy as sufficient reason to refuse relief under Article 226, noting the matter was similar to an earlier decision where writ jurisdiction had also been declined in favour of the appellate process. The petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2026 08:04:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=875864" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 199 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784443</link>
      <description>A writ challenge to an adjudication order under the CGST Act was declined because the order was appealable under the Act&#039;s statutory appellate scheme. The court treated the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy as sufficient reason to refuse relief under Article 226, noting the matter was similar to an earlier decision where writ jurisdiction had also been declined in favour of the appellate process. The petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784443</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>