9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the notice/order dated March 4, 1992, issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Compliance with mandatory provisions of law under section 151 of the Income-tax Act. 3. Jurisdiction of the competent authority in issuing the impugned notice/order. 4. Availability of alternative remedy under Chapter-XX of the Income-tax Act. 5. Discretion of the High Court in entertaining a writ petition when an alternative remedy is available. Analysis: 1. The writ petitioner sought relief against the notice/order dated March 4, 1992, issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, contending that it was violative of the law as the firm had been assessed for income-tax for several years prior to the impugned notice. The respondents argued that the notice was valid and issued within the jurisdiction of the competent authority after obtaining sanction as required by law. 2. The writ petitioner alleged non-compliance with mandatory provisions of law under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, stating that the notice was issued without following the necessary procedures. The respondents countered this argument by asserting that all required procedures were duly followed, and the notice was validly issued. 3. The jurisdiction of the competent authority in issuing the impugned notice/order was questioned by the writ petitioner, claiming that the authority lacked the necessary sanction for the notice. The respondents defended the authority's jurisdiction, stating that the sanction was obtained from the appropriate authority as required by law. 4. The court highlighted the availability of an alternative remedy under Chapter-XX of the Income-tax Act for aggrieved parties to appeal or seek revision from orders issued by the Income-tax Officer. The writ petitioner failed to utilize this alternative remedy and directly approached the High Court, which was deemed inappropriate by the court. 5. The court emphasized that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should be exercised judiciously, especially when an alternative remedy is available. It cited precedents to support the principle that the High Court should not bypass statutory remedies by entertaining writ petitions. The court dismissed the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy and the complexity of factual issues involved. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition but allowed the writ petitioner to approach the appropriate appellate authority within a specified timeframe. The court directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal promptly, emphasizing the importance of following statutory procedures and exhausting alternative remedies before seeking relief through writ petitions.
|
