2001 (9) TMI 71 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court.
2. Validity of the notice u/s 163 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Validity of the notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Availability of alternative remedy.

Comprehensive Summary:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, arguing that the service of notices at their registered office in Kolkata constituted a part of the cause of action. The court examined various precedents and concluded that mere service of notice does not constitute an integral part of the cause of action sufficient to confer jurisdiction. The court held that the substantive actions and orders were issued and to be contested in Mumbai, thus dismissing the petition on jurisdictional grounds.

2. Validity of the Notice u/s 163:
The petitioner contested the notice issued u/s 163, which treated them as an agent of a foreign firm for the assessment year 1998-99. The court noted that the petitioner had engaged the services of the foreign firm and made payments, thus fulfilling the criteria of having a business connection as per sections 163(1)(b) and 163(1)(c). The court found that the notice and subsequent order were legally valid and within the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Assessing Officer.

3. Validity of the Notice u/s 148:
The petitioner argued that the notice u/s 148 was issued without recording any reasons and was thus invalid. The court observed that the reasons for issuing the notice were indeed recorded, which stated that the petitioner had made payments to the foreign firm, qualifying them as an agent. The court held that the issuance of the notice was justified and that the sufficiency or correctness of the material is not for the court to examine at this stage.

4. Availability of Alternative Remedy:
The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of an appeal against the order u/s 163. The court agreed, stating that since an appeal process was available, the writ petition was not maintainable. The court emphasized that it would not interfere when an adequate alternative remedy existed.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and the availability of an alternative remedy. The notices and orders issued u/s 163 and 148 were found to be legally valid and justified.