9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition seeking to quash four reassessment notices under Wealth-tax Act, 1957 based on jurisdiction and limitation grounds. Preliminary objection raised on the tenability of the petition due to the existence of an alternative remedy. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to challenge four notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax, seeking to quash the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The petitioner contended that the reasons disclosed for reassessment were insufficient and that the reassessment was time-barred under section 17A of the Act. The assessing authority had cited an assessment order from a previous year as the basis for initiating the reassessment. The respondents opposed the petition, raising a preliminary objection on the tenability of the petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy. The court noted that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy available before approaching the High Court. The court emphasized that when a statutory forum exists for redressal, petitioners should not bypass it and directly approach the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution. Citing legal precedents, the court highlighted that the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 should be exercised subject to self-imposed limitations, especially when alternative remedies are available. The court noted that the petitioner, having already submitted returns in response to the notices, should await the final outcome of the assessments. The Wealth-tax Act, 1957 provides a comprehensive mechanism for challenging assessment orders through appeals and revisions before different authorities. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the petitioner should utilize the remedies available under the Act for redressal of grievances. The court also vacated any stay granted earlier and made no order as to costs. The judgment underscores the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking intervention from the High Court under article 226.
|
