<?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 (3) TMI 1693 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468435</link>
    <description>A writ challenge to a GST assessment order was declined because a statutory appellate remedy was available and the petition was filed more than two and a half years after the order. The Court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not used to bypass an alternative statutory remedy, particularly in tax assessment matters. The prolonged delay also weighed against interference. The petitioner was left to pursue the statutory remedy, if available in law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 18:41:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900043" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1693 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468435</link>
      <description>A writ challenge to a GST assessment order was declined because a statutory appellate remedy was available and the petition was filed more than two and a half years after the order. The Court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not used to bypass an alternative statutory remedy, particularly in tax assessment matters. The prolonged delay also weighed against interference. The petitioner was left to pursue the statutory remedy, if available in law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468435</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>