https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49228 A writ petition to quash a rebate-withdrawal rectification order was not maintainable where the alleged error depended on disputed questions of fact about whether dividends were paid from profits of the rebate year or from current profits. The Court treated the issue as requiring examination of accounts and factual inquiry over several years, which is unsuitable for determination under Article 226. The absence of a direct statutory appeal did not, by itself, justify writ interference, particularly because an alternative remedy under section 33-A(2) was available. The challenge to the rectification order therefore failed. en-us Tue, 17 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Aug 2014 08:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49228 A writ petition to quash a rebate-withdrawal rectification order was not maintainable where the alleged error depended on disputed questions of fact about whether dividends were paid from profits of the rebate year or from current profits. The Court treated the issue as requiring examination of accounts and factual inquiry over several years, which is unsuitable for determination under Article 226. The absence of a direct statutory appeal did not, by itself, justify writ interference, particularly because an alternative remedy under section 33-A(2) was available. The challenge to the rectification order therefore failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 17 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49228