9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction under the Companies Act and Income-tax Act, Assessment under section 148, Availability of alternative remedy, Extraordinary circumstances for invoking writ jurisdiction. Jurisdiction under the Companies Act and Income-tax Act: The petitioner challenged the order of assessment dated March 30, 2004, on the question of jurisdiction, claiming the registered office is in Pondicherry for assessment purposes under the Companies Act and Income-tax Act. The assessment was reopened under section 147 due to a deficient return of income for 2000-01 with tax benefits claimed under section 80-IA. The petitioner failed to rectify the deficiency within the stipulated time despite notices. The assessment was completed on merits, rejecting the plea of jurisdiction. Assessment under section 148: The petitioner, through its counsel, argued the lack of jurisdiction under section 148, seeking the writ petition's consideration by the court. The petitioner filed financial statements but requested the return of the original income return. The petitioner was asked to provide particulars for the benefit under section 80-IA, but summons to directors were returned unserved. The Revenue contended that the petitioner failed to provide evidence supporting its claim and sought adjournments on various pretexts before claiming records were destroyed in a fire accident. Availability of alternative remedy: The standing counsel for the respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an alternative remedy through an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The court agreed that the issues raised were considered by the respondent, and since the matter required factual investigation, no extraordinary circumstances warranted the court's interference. Referring to a previous decision, the court emphasized the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction. Extraordinary circumstances for invoking writ jurisdiction: Considering the issues and the availability of an alternative remedy, the court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to prefer an appeal within thirty days. The court highlighted that the principle of not invoking writ jurisdiction when an alternative remedy exists applies to the present case. The connected motions were closed, and no costs were awarded. This detailed analysis of the judgment from the High Court of MADRAS covers the jurisdictional challenges, assessment under section 148, the availability of alternative remedies, and the court's decision based on relevant legal principles and precedents.
|
