9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appealability of the order dated September 11, 1991, under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Availability of alternative remedy under section 246(1)(c) of the Act. Analysis: The High Court of Allahabad heard a writ petition challenging an order dated September 11, 1991, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax adjusting the income of a registered firm engaged in the manufacturing and supply of veterinary herbal medicines. The petitioners contended that certain mistakes in the assessment were apparent on the face of the record and sought rectification under section 154 of the Act. The main issue was whether the order under section 154 was appealable under section 246(1)(c) of the Act. The court noted that the provision allowed appeals against orders enhancing assessment or reducing refunds, including those under section 154, thereby making such orders appealable. The petitioners argued that orders under section 154(1)(a) were not appealable, but the court held that the legislative intent encompassed appeals against all orders under section 154, including sub-section (1)(a). The petitioners contended that there was no alternative remedy available to them, citing precedents to support their argument. However, the court distinguished the cited cases, emphasizing the principle that where an alternative remedy exists, interference in writ jurisdiction is not warranted. The court highlighted the decision in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, which established that when an alternative remedy is provided, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked. The court held that the petitioners had not exhausted the available appellate forum and dismissed the writ petition on the ground of the availability of an alternative remedy. Consequently, the stay order issued earlier was vacated, and the writ petition was dismissed.
|
