2021 (7) TMI 253 - HC - Income Tax

Maintainability of Writ petition - mandamus prayer seeking a direction to the respondents for return of the Computer Hard Disk and documents, etc., seized by them - petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of summons by the respondents and petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of summons by the respondents - HELD THAT - When a dispute is pending before the Tax Authority, unless a decision is taken by the authority one way or the other, it is certainly not open to the petitioner to rush to this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any event, in a pending dispute of this nature before the Tax Authority, it is certainly not open to this Court to give any direction as sought by the petitioner in this writ petition. What the petitioner could not achieve directly, he is attempting to achieve the same indirectly by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. This Court would certainly not pass any direction when action has been initiated against the petitioner by the Tax Authority and has not culminated or crystallized into any definite decision. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable for more than one reason that the same being premature and the same being not maintainable - WP dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking return of seized items, aggrieved by summons under Income Tax Act, rushing to Court for mandamus prayer before Tax Authority's decision, maintainability of the writ petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking the return of the Computer Hard Disk and documents seized by the respondents. The petitioner was aggrieved by the issuance of summons under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and had responded to the summons. However, the Court noted that the petitioner had rushed to seek a mandamus prayer before the Tax Authority had made a decision on the matter. The Court emphasized that when a dispute is pending before the Tax Authority, it is not appropriate for the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prematurely. The Court highlighted that in such pending disputes, it is not within its purview to provide directions as sought by the petitioner in the writ petition. The Court observed that the petitioner's attempt to indirectly achieve what could not be achieved directly through the Tax Authority was not permissible. It was noted that since the action against the petitioner by the Tax Authority had not culminated into a definite decision, the writ petition was premature and not maintainable.

The Court, therefore, dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that it was not maintainable for multiple reasons, including prematurity and lack of maintainability. The judgment concluded by stating that no costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.