9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 379 - HC - Income TaxRecourse to an alternate remedy - Reason to believe that underassessment had resulted from non-disclosure of material facts, before the Income Tax Officer himself in the assessment proceedings and if unsuccessful there before the appellate officer or the Appellate Tribunal or in the High Court - HELD THAT As has been observed by this Court and other courts including the Supreme Court in several judgments, an alternate remedy is a self-imposed limitation placed on itself by the Court. It does not prevent the Court from entertaining an action, if it, otherwise, has jurisdiction in the matter. See Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO 1960 (11) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT - Also see Whirlpool Corpn. vs. Registrar of Trade Marks 1998 (10) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT In this case, particularly, we do not see any purpose in relegating the petitioner to the alternate forum, in view of the fact that the issue raised stands already covered by the judgment of this Court in Concentrix case 2021 (4) TMI 1051 - DELHI HIGH COURT there being no dispute qua the facts. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court, in ABL International Ltd. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd., 2003 (12) TMI 584 - SUPREME COURT has observed that even where the facts are disputed, it does not, willy-nilly, restrain a writ Court from entertaining such an action, if it, otherwise, chooses to do so. Also see Piramal Healthcare Limited vs. Union of India 2013 (7) TMI 1166 - DELHI HIGH COURT .
Issues:
1. Consideration of an alternate remedy in a writ petition. 2. Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain an action despite the availability of an alternate remedy. 3. Setting aside of impugned orders based on previous judgment. 4. Disposal of the writ petition. Issue 1: Consideration of an alternate remedy in a writ petition The petitioner argued that the issue in the present petition was covered by a previous judgment. The respondent acknowledged this but suggested the petitioner could opt for an alternate remedy. The Court noted that an alternate remedy is a self-imposed limitation by the Court and does not bar the Court from entertaining an action if it has jurisdiction. Citing legal precedents, the Court emphasized that even when facts are disputed, a writ Court can still entertain an action. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to reject the petition solely based on the availability of an alternate remedy. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain an action despite the availability of an alternate remedy The Court highlighted that the availability of an alternate remedy does not prevent the Court from exercising its jurisdiction if it chooses to do so. In this case, as the issue raised was already covered by a previous judgment and there was no dispute regarding the facts, the Court saw no purpose in relegating the petitioner to an alternate forum. The Court referred to legal principles emphasizing that the power to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary and not limited by the availability of an alternate remedy. Issue 3: Setting aside of impugned orders based on previous judgment The Court set aside the impugned orders dated 12.03.2021 and 31.01.2021, as the issue raised in the present petition was already covered by a previous judgment. The Court found no purpose in upholding the impugned orders when the facts were undisputed and the issue had already been addressed in a previous case. Issue 4: Disposal of the writ petition Ultimately, the Court disposed of the writ petition in favor of the petitioner based on the considerations mentioned above. The pending application was also closed as a result of the judgment. The Court's decision was influenced by the previous judgment covering the same issue and the lack of purpose in pursuing an alternate remedy when the facts were clear and undisputed.
|
