2011 (1) TMI 1119 - HC - Income Tax

Writ of certiorari - Writ petition - counsel for the respondent has pointed out that in similar writ petitions, this Court vide order 2011 (1) TMI 1118 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT has dismissed as many as eight writ petitions by a common order and the present writ is based on similar facts - Held that - As petitioner has filed second writ petitions for set of facts therefore Court is of the firm view that second writ petition is not maintainable when the core issues are same in the present writ petition as well as in the earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioner. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed in limine

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of draft assessment order dated 30-12-2010.
2. Compliance with interim order issued by the Court.
3. Maintainability of second writ petition on the same facts.

Analysis:

1. Validity of draft assessment order dated 30-12-2010:
The petitioner sought a writ to quash the draft assessment order issued by the respondent. The respondent argued that similar writ petitions had been dismissed by the Court previously. The Court noted that the petitioner had filed a previous writ petition related to the same facts. The petitioner contended that despite an interim order from the Court, the Assessing Officer proceeded with the assessment. The legal provision under Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act allows the petitioner to file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Court observed that since a prima facie opinion had been formed and a notice issued to the respondent, pursuing the matter further while the writ petition was pending would be futile.

2. Compliance with interim order issued by the Court:
The Court referred to Rule 7 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court, 1952, which prohibits making a second application on the same facts after rejection of the first application. As the petitioner had filed a second writ petition on the same facts, the Court deemed it not maintainable. The Court emphasized that when the core issues remain the same as in the earlier writ petition, filing a second writ petition on identical facts is not permissible. Consequently, the Court held that the second writ petition was not maintainable and dismissed it outright. The petitioner was granted liberty to take appropriate action in the earlier writ petitions if advised to do so.

3. Maintainability of second writ petition on the same facts:
The Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, citing the lack of maintainability due to the repetition of core issues from the earlier petition. The petitioner was advised to pursue any further action in the context of the earlier writ petitions. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly, bringing the matter to a conclusion.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Court's reasoning leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.