2016 (9) TMI 1257 - HC - Income Tax

Alternate remedy - Held that - As the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy, we find that interference of this Court in the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of the India would not at all be justified. Reserving the right of the petitioner to avail of such alternate remedy in the light of the observations made herein above, we disposed off the above petition. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be granted interim protection, as according to him, the petitioner is called upon to deposit an amount in term of the subject assessment by tomorrow. Ms. A. Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/revenue however submits that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents/revenue shall not take coercive action until Monday.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the High Court should interfere in a matter where a substantive remedy is pending before the CIT(Appeals).
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim protection against the subject assessment.

Analysis:

1. The judgment begins by acknowledging that a substantive remedy challenging the subject assessment is pending before the CIT(Appeals). The petitioner's counsel argues that the order by the Principal Commissioner lacks reasons, warranting the Court's intervention. In response, the respondent's counsel suggests that the petitioner can seek interim relief and present their contentions in the pending appeal. The Court observes that since an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not justified. The Court, while recognizing the petitioner's right to pursue the alternate remedy, decides to dispose of the petition.

2. Following the above determination, the petitioner's counsel requests interim protection, citing an impending deposit obligation related to the subject assessment. The respondent's counsel, acknowledging the unique circumstances of the case, assures that no coercive action will be taken until a specified date. Consequently, the Court disposes of the petition, taking note of the parties' submissions and the assurance regarding the enforcement of the assessment.

In conclusion, the High Court decision emphasizes the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before seeking intervention under constitutional provisions, ensuring that parties utilize available avenues for relief. The judgment reflects a balanced approach by considering the pending substantive remedy and addressing the petitioner's concerns regarding interim protection, ultimately providing clarity on the course of action to be followed in the given legal context.