https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469828 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined because effective statutory appeals against the assessment and penalty orders were already pending, and the appellate authority could consider all grounds, including natural justice objections and the alleged non-existence of the foundational document. The Court therefore refused to examine the merits of the assessment in writ proceedings and left the challenge to secondary evidence to the appellate forum. It also held that the pendency of criminal prosecution did not justify present interference, as available defences could be raised before the competent criminal court. The petition was rejected, with the petitioner directed to pursue statutory and other appropriate remedies. en-us Mon, 06 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jul 2026 18:12:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469828 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined because effective statutory appeals against the assessment and penalty orders were already pending, and the appellate authority could consider all grounds, including natural justice objections and the alleged non-existence of the foundational document. The Court therefore refused to examine the merits of the assessment in writ proceedings and left the challenge to secondary evidence to the appellate forum. It also held that the pendency of criminal prosecution did not justify present interference, as available defences could be raised before the competent criminal court. The petition was rejected, with the petitioner directed to pursue statutory and other appropriate remedies. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 06 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469828