https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788297 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined where an equally efficacious statutory appeal remedy existed and the petitioner delayed invoking it; the court applied the principle that discretionary writ relief requires utmost expedition and ordinarily will not be granted when delay or self induced inability to use the alternate remedy is unexplained, and found no satisfactory cause for the belated challenge. The court also rejected a natural justice complaint, holding that show cause notices and hearing opportunities were on record and the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice or any substantive defence warranting relief. en-us Mon, 16 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Apr 2026 13:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788297 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined where an equally efficacious statutory appeal remedy existed and the petitioner delayed invoking it; the court applied the principle that discretionary writ relief requires utmost expedition and ordinarily will not be granted when delay or self induced inability to use the alternate remedy is unexplained, and found no satisfactory cause for the belated challenge. The court also rejected a natural justice complaint, holding that show cause notices and hearing opportunities were on record and the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice or any substantive defence warranting relief. Case-Laws GST Mon, 16 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788297