<?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 (5) TMI 237 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791035</link>
    <description>A writ petition challenging an order-in-original under the GST regime was not entertained because a statutory appellate remedy was available and the challenge was brought after a substantial delay. The Court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked when an efficacious alternative remedy exists, particularly in tax adjudication matters. The petitioner was left to pursue any permissible remedy in accordance with law, and the writ petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 09:09:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=899901" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 237 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791035</link>
      <description>A writ petition challenging an order-in-original under the GST regime was not entertained because a statutory appellate remedy was available and the challenge was brought after a substantial delay. The Court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked when an efficacious alternative remedy exists, particularly in tax adjudication matters. The petitioner was left to pursue any permissible remedy in accordance with law, and the writ petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791035</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>