https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469336 Writ jurisdiction was held to remain available where the challenge was not merely contractual but targeted a demand founded on regulations already struck down; the existence of an alternative statutory forum did not bar Article 226 relief. The court also held that demand notices for SLDC charges, transmission charges and monthly transaction charges were premature because the project had not commenced and the commercial operation date had not been declared. As the impugned demand rested on an invalid regulatory basis and was raised before the operative stage of the project, the consequential notice and email were quashed, while the respondents were left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law. en-us Fri, 17 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jun 2026 11:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469336 Writ jurisdiction was held to remain available where the challenge was not merely contractual but targeted a demand founded on regulations already struck down; the existence of an alternative statutory forum did not bar Article 226 relief. The court also held that demand notices for SLDC charges, transmission charges and monthly transaction charges were premature because the project had not commenced and the commercial operation date had not been declared. As the impugned demand rested on an invalid regulatory basis and was raised before the operative stage of the project, the consequential notice and email were quashed, while the respondents were left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469336