2016 (10) TMI 504 - HC - Income Tax

Forum for redressal of grievance - Held that - Public policy demands that a person has right to choose the forum for redressal of his grievance, but he cannot be permitted to choose two forums in respect of the same subject matter for the same relief. It yet needs to be clarified that the writ Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction even if the parties approached other forum. There must be extraordinary situation or circumstance, which may warrant different approach, particularly, where the orders passed by the Court are sought to be violated or thwarted with impunity. The Court cannot be a silent spectator in such extraordinary situation. (Ref Awadh Bihari Yadav and others versus State of Bihar and others, (1995 (8) TMI 320 - SUPREME COURT)). However, this is not the fact situation obtaining in the instant case. What to talk of an extraordinary situation or circumstance, the petitioner firm has not even disclosed about the pendency of the appeal in its writ petition and the same only finds mention in the list of dates appended therewith. There being no extraordinary situation or circumstance warranting this Court to step-in to interfere, we are clearly of the view that the instant writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner firm having chosen to avail of the remedy, as provided in the statute that too earlier to the filing of the instant petition, cannot maintain this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. However, before parting, it may be necessary to observe that anything stated in the judgment shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the appellate authority shall proceed to decide the appeal uninfluenced by any observations that may be contained hereinabove.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternate statutory appeal has already been filed challenging the assessment order.
2. Whether a party can choose multiple remedies in different forums for the same subject matter.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner firm sought relief through a writ petition to quash the assessment order and transfer order for the Assessment Year 2001-2002. The firm claimed the assessment was made ex parte without following proper procedures. The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable as the firm had already filed a statutory appeal challenging the assessment order. The respondents contended that the firm cannot seek relief in both the appeal and the writ petition simultaneously. The court examined the legal principle that once a party chooses a remedy, it must follow through with that remedy, citing various precedents to support this principle. The court emphasized that allowing multiple remedies in different forums could lead to conflicting judgments and unnecessary litigation.

2. The court referred to cases such as K.S.Rashid and Sons v. Income-tax Investigation Commission and A.V. Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani to highlight the principle that when more than one remedy is available for the same grievance, the party must choose one remedy and cannot pursue multiple remedies simultaneously. The court reiterated that public policy demands that a party cannot choose two forums for the same subject matter seeking the same relief. The court emphasized that once a party has availed an alternative remedy, it is not appropriate for the court to entertain a writ petition on the same matter. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner firm had already chosen a remedy by filing a statutory appeal earlier, and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. The court clarified that its decision did not express any opinion on the merits of the case and left the parties to bear their own costs.

In conclusion, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that the petitioner firm could not maintain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it had already filed a statutory appeal challenging the assessment order. The court emphasized the principle that once a party chooses a remedy, it must follow through with that remedy and cannot pursue multiple remedies in different forums for the same subject matter. The court's decision was based on established legal precedents and public policy considerations to avoid conflicting judgments and unnecessary litigation.