2021 (2) TMI 330 - HC - Income Tax

Alternate remedy - Second round of litigation - Petitioner had approached this court seeking credit for TDS as per TRACES site in 26AS - petitioner has filed rectification applications under Section 154 seeking the same reliefs as well as for interest under Section 244A - Petitioner makes a prayer for directions to the respondents to comply with the earlier directions given by this court and also claims reliefs which were sought in the first round - HELD THAT - The present writ petition, is ex-facie not maintainable. The petitioner cannot seek the same reliefs, as were sought in the earlier petition. As regards failure on the part of the Respondent in complying with the directions, the petitioner has the remedy of invoking the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail its remedy available under law regarding non-compliance of the orders passed by this court.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking credit for TDS discrepancy and brought forward losses, non-compliance with court directions, maintainability of the writ petition, availability of remedy under contempt jurisdiction.

Analysis:
In this case, the Petitioner had previously approached the court seeking credit for TDS and brought forward losses. The court had directed the respondents to decide on rectification applications within four weeks. However, the Petitioner now claims that the directions have not been followed, and the representations are pending. The Petitioner seeks directions to ensure compliance with the earlier order and the reliefs sought in the first round. The court notes that the present petition is not maintainable as the same reliefs cannot be sought again. The court also points out that if there is a failure to comply with the directions, the Petitioner can invoke the contempt jurisdiction of the court.

The court dismisses the present writ petition but grants liberty to the Petitioner to avail the remedy available under the law for non-compliance with court orders. It is explicitly stated that the court has not examined the merits of the claims made by the Petitioner. The judgment emphasizes the importance of following court directions and the availability of legal remedies in case of non-compliance. The court's decision highlights the procedural aspects of maintaining writ petitions and the appropriate course of action in case of alleged non-compliance by the respondents.