2013 (4) TMI 587 - HC - Wealth-tax

Assessment orders illegal or without jurisdiction or null and void as a wrong section finds mention in the impugned assessment orders - Held that - As from the photostat copies of the impugned assessment orders and challans it appears that there is overwriting in the assessment orders on the figure (3) of words section 16 (3) . As nothing turns upon this overwriting, it cannot be taken into account and leave the matter as it is. No merit in the argument of the petitioners as point raised by the petitioners is more technical in nature than substantial one. As decided in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others (2010 (7) TMI 829 - SUPREME COURT) that in all such cases of tax matters, the court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statutes vide para-43 - writ petition dismissed as petitioners have adequate alternative remedy by way of appeal.

Summary

Issues:
Twenty wealth tax assessees challenging individual assessment orders for the Assessment Year 2010-2011 raise a common question of law regarding the jurisdiction of the respondent authority.

Analysis:
The petitioners collectively filed a writ petition challenging the individual assessment orders issued by the Wealth Tax Officer under the Wealth Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2010-2011. The petitioners argued that despite being assessed individually, they should be considered collectively by the High Court due to a common question of law. The respondent issued notices under sections 16(4) and 16(5) of the Act, requiring the petitioners to file wealth tax returns and proposing a wealth tax liability for one of the petitioners. The petitioners contended that the assessment orders were passed under the wrong section of the Act, questioning the jurisdiction of the respondent authority.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection, citing the availability of an alternative remedy through an appeal under the Act, as per the decision in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon. The petitioners argued that challenging jurisdiction was not barred by the existence of an alternative remedy and emphasized the incorrect application of sections in the assessment orders. The Court examined the submissions and highlighted the legal principle that mentioning a wrong section does not invalidate an order if the source of power can be traced. The Court reviewed the assessment orders and observed overwriting on the section number, deeming it inconsequential.

The Court concluded that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by the alleged error in mentioning the section in the assessment orders. It deemed the issue raised by the petitioners as more technical than substantial. Referring to the decision in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon, the Court emphasized the need to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy through an appeal as sufficient for addressing the petitioners' grievances regarding the assessment orders.

In summary, the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the wealth tax assessees, emphasizing the technical nature of the issue raised and directing the petitioners to pursue the available remedy of appeal under the Wealth Tax Act for addressing their concerns regarding the assessment orders.