https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790987 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised where a taxpayer challenges an intimation under Section 143(1) after inordinate delay and laches, particularly when the taxpayer had participated in the proceedings and pursued related remedies without promptly questioning the intimation. The availability of an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 253 before the ITAT also weighs against writ maintainability, and the court will generally decline to bypass that appellate mechanism absent exceptional grounds. The commentary emphasises that delay and failure to use the statutory route can defeat maintainability, leaving the aggrieved party to pursue the prescribed appellate remedy. en-us Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 May 2026 07:57:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790987 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised where a taxpayer challenges an intimation under Section 143(1) after inordinate delay and laches, particularly when the taxpayer had participated in the proceedings and pursued related remedies without promptly questioning the intimation. The availability of an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 253 before the ITAT also weighs against writ maintainability, and the court will generally decline to bypass that appellate mechanism absent exceptional grounds. The commentary emphasises that delay and failure to use the statutory route can defeat maintainability, leaving the aggrieved party to pursue the prescribed appellate remedy. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790987