9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, the action cannot be upheld in the background of the facts of the instant case. One more redeeming fact which has a direct nexus with the subsequent reassessment proceedings and ramification of the same has culminated into reassessment orders is the impugned order whereby the Assessing Officer has rejected the objections submitted by the assessees pursuant to the notice under section 147/148 of the Act. The order passed by the Assessing Officer in this behalf is not a speaking order which cannot be sustained. In view of the legal infirmity in the notice under section 147/148 of the Act and laconic order of the Assessing Officer while rejecting the objections of the assessees the consequential assessment orders are also liable to be annulled. - Decided in favour of assessee. - S. B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos 1140, 1017, 1018, 1030, 1032, 1043, 1141, 1145, 1168, 1170, 1250, 1248 and 1496 of 2014. - - - Dated:- 11-4-2014 - P. K. LOHRA J. For the Appellant : Prakul Khurana, Sanjay Nahar, Manish Singh Lakhawat For the Respondent : K. K. Bissa, Senior Standing Counsel, Income-tax Department, with Hargovind Chanda JUDGMENT P. K. Lohra J.- Challenge in the ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial during the course of search/survey dated February 10, 2010, and after consideration and analyzing the same issued a consolidated questionnaire to the concerned assessees. Be that as it may, no proceeding for framing regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was initiated in case of Prakash Beverages, Nakoda Land Developers and Sambhav Energy. This exercise was completed on October 21, 2011. Proceedings initiated in case of Krishna Dairy, under section 132 was also dropped on November 24, 2011. Finally, on December 23, 2011, assessment under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act was completed on the strength of seized record/impounded documents, thereby making various additions of Income-tax in the hands of Mukesh Modi, Diksha Jain and Bharat Das Vaishnav. The subject matter of these additions are related to the very same transactions/orders in relation to which the first respondent has initiated the impugned reassessment proceedings. It is also clearly discernible that these additions are subject matter of respective appeals preferred by the petitioners-assessees before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and are still pending adjudication. The sequenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roposal to all the petitioners that instead of deciding these preliminary objections separately by passing an order he shall deal with those objections at the threshold in the opening paragraphs of the reassessment order so that the same will form a part of the re- assessment order. The proposal, so mooted at the instance of the third respondent, did not find favour from the assessees, and, therefore, on October 23, 2013, the same was objected on the anvil of mandate of the hon'ble apex court. Be that as it may, on January 17, 2014, the first respondent disposed of all the objections submitted by the assessees and concluded that the proceedings under section 147 of the Act are perfectly valid and legal. While disposing of the objections submitted by the assessees, the first respondent has issued impugned notice to the petitioners under section 143(2) of the Act calling upon them to produce any documents, accounts and any other evidence on which they may rely to support the return filed by them. According to the petitioners, the intent of the first respondent for issuing the impugned notice is clear and explicit inasmuch as its intent is to make roving and fishing inquiries in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents have pleaded in the reply that the search was conducted at the business/residential premises of Sirohi based Modi alias Adarsh group consisting of Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Mukesh Modi, Bharat Modi, Virendra Modi, Mahendra Tak, Bharat Vaishnav and their family members and business associates, etc., and most of them residing at Sirohi have revealed several incriminating documents along with cash, jewellery and other valuables. During survey under section 133A of the Act, inventories of various items/books of account/vouchers/documents were prepared and taken. During survey, it was also revealed that regular books of accounts/copies of returns of income for various years were not available, and, therefore, it was not possible to verify the details of books/documents. It is also submitted in the return that besides non-availability of the requisite books of account/documents and financial statements and in the absence of responsible/answerable/qualified persons to handle the job of verification, it was not possible to undertake the job of verification. The respondents have also submitted in the reply that survey under section 133A of the Act was also carried ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appeal under section 246/246A of the Act and the writ petitions are liable to be thrown away merely on that count. The respondents have also submitted in the alternative that the reassessment orders are not subject matter of judicial scrutiny in these petitions and as such after passing of the reassessment orders, nothing survives for adjudication in these petitions. The attempt made by the petitioners to assail the reassessment orders is also resisted by the respondents on the ground that no requisite amendments have been made in the writ petitions for challenging the same. 8. Highlighting the conduct of the assessees, more particularly their litigating perseverance, the respondent-Revenue has relied on the assessments of all the assessees completed under section 144 of the Act ex parte. The respondents also relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer on the issue of TDS categorizing the conduct of the assessees as evasive. The respondent-Revenue has asserted that the petitioners were not interested in getting the things verified on the merits. Defending the action of the Assessing Officer for floating the proposal of deciding the objections at the threshold while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason to believe insisted under section 147 of the Act. Learned counsel, Mr. Khurana, has contended with full emphasis that endeavour of the first respondent in the garb of reassessment proceedings is to verify some of the details on the strength of material which was already available on record, impounded/seized in the year 2010 duly considered and verified in the course of reassessment proceedings under section 153A of the Act vis-a-vis various members of the Adarsh group including the petitioners, Mukesh Modi, Daksha Kumari Jain and Bharat Das Vaishnav and on proper appreciation of these materials proceedings were dropped in the case of Krishna Dairy. Making scathing attack on the reasons recorded, Mr. Khurana would urge that verification of details found during surveys already examined and scrutinized earlier by the Assessing Officer, cannot furnish a plausible ground for initiating action against the assessees under section 147/148 of the Act as the same is on the face of it outside the scope of these provisions much less satisfying the requirement of reason to believe . Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that on the face of it the reasons recorded are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mining true purport of the words reason to believe has held that where the reasons recorded reflect that the matter requires detailed investigation and further verification, the Assessing Officer has reason to suspect and not reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and, therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer is invalid and as such the impugned notice under section 148 is not sustainable and liable to be quashed. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are 19, 20, 23 and 30, which are reproduced as infra : 19. For the purpose of invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act, formation of requisite belief precedes the initiation of the proceedings. In the circumstances, in the light of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 148, before issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to record reasons for the formation of belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assess ment. In the present case, on a plain reading of the reasons recorded, as noted hereinabove no such belief appears to have been recorded by the Assessing Officer. However, in the penultimate para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground No. 2 either under section 269SS or section 271B of the Act and in relation to ground No. 3 either under section 269T or section 40A(3) of the Act. In case of default under the provisions of section 269SS, section 269T and section 271B of the Act, penalty is leviable under the sections 271D, 271E and 271B of the Act respectively. The aforesaid provisions are penalty provisions and even if the petitioner were liable to pay penalty under the said provisions, the same would not give rise to a conclusion that income has escaped assessment. 30. In the present case, as noticed hereinabove, from the reasons recorded, it is apparent that the Assessing Officer did not have any material before him so as to satisfy the requirements of section 147 of the Act in as much as, there is no material whatsoever before the Assessing Officer on the basis of which a reasonable man would come to the conclusion that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The reasons recorded reflect that the Assessing Officer feels that the matter requires detailed investigation and further veri fication. Thus, it appears that the Assessing Officer has reason to sus pect and not reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 147 of the Act. In order to authenticate this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following judgments : Satnam Overseas Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2010] 329 ITR 237 (Delhi) ; and Pardesi Developers and Infrastructure P. Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 351 ITR 8 (Delhi). 15. In Satnam Overseas (supra), the Delhi High Court, while examining the powers of the Assessing Officer under section 147 and section 148 of the Act, made following observations (page 246) : We feel that the writ petitions have to succeed because the con tentions as raised on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner are well founded. The only reason which has been given seeking reopening of the assessment for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 is that suppression of sales have taken place on account of the fact that when average price of the closing stock is multiplied with the quantity of the sales in the year then the value of the sales would be at a higher figure than that as declared by the assessee. Clearly, there is no new material which is alleged to have come to the notice of the Assessing Officer which has caused him to seek ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shares. There fore, the very foundation of the notice under section 148 of the said Act is not established even ex facie. Consequently, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer had the requisite belief under section 147 of the said Act and, as a consequence, the impugned notice were quashed. The writ petition was allowed. 17. Mr. Prakul Khurana, while articulating his submissions, has urged that the impugned proceedings are bad and illegal as these proceedings are barred by the third proviso to section 147 of the Act. Mr. Khurana has argued that after completing the assessment in the case of Mukesh Modi, Daksha Kumari Jain and Bharat Das Vaishnav under section 143(3)/144 read with section 153A of the Act which was founded on thorough scanning of seized/impounded material unearthed during the course of search/ survey operations in the case of the Modi/Adarsh group, which is clearly discernible from the reasons recorded while assessing the total income of the petitioners, how and in what manner the Assessing Officer can reopen the assessment proceedings when these assessments under section 153A of the Act are sub judice before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hirk from its responsibility to dispose of the objections by a speaking order mandated by the hon'ble apex court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC). Mr. Khurana has also questioned the proactive role of the Assessing Officer in passing the reassessment orders with undue haste. Mr. Khurana has submitted that the whole endeavour of the Assessing Officer while passing the reassessment orders hurriedly was intended to frustrate the cause of the petitioners to seek judicial review of the impugned action under article 226 of the Constitution. 20. Per contra, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue Mr. K. K. Bissa has argued that there is no infirmity much less infirmity in initiation of reassessment proceedings against the assessees under section 147/148 of the Act. Mr. Bissa would contend that notices under section 148 of the Act were issued to the assessees on noticing material discrepancies from the available material which was seized and impounded during surveys. Learned counsel further submits that certain anomalies remained unexplained due to non-verification of the materials for which the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Income-tax Act, were decided, it has been pointed out that the respondent did not 'uncover the lease agreement' and did not specify terms and conditions thereof, which had material bearing on the assessment. In the letter dated January 12, 2004, the assessing autho rity has expressed the view that the respondent did not fully and truly disclose all the material facts. The following observations of the assessing authority contained in the communication need to be quoted : 'You did not bother to provide what were the transactions and conditions of lease rent, who were the lessor, what were the instal ments, what was interest element, when the interest was accruing and when interest payment was becoming due, what was the prin cipal element, what was prepaid lease rent and likewise. You did not come forward with sample copy of lease agreement by you with les sor. In this connection please refer similar enquiry during the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2000-01 in which you have provided one page of expressed explanation and as many as 58 pages of supporting evidence which includes summary of lease payment for the relevant year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch matters is confined to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case and sufficiency or correctness of material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. In support of this argument, Mr. Bissa has placed reliance on a decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC) and also referred to Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 23. In Raymond Woollen Mill's case (supra), the hon'ble apex court without examining the case on the merits has held as under (page 35 of 236 ITR) : In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee or not. We have only to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. We are of the view that the court cannot strike down the reopening of the case in the facts of this case. It will be open to the assessee to prove that the assumption of facts made in the notice was erroneous. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, as also sections 148 to 152 are substantially different from the provisions as they stood prior to such substitution. Under the old provisions of section 147, separate clauses (a) and (b) laid down the circumstances under which income escaping assessment for the past assessment years could be assessed or reassessed. To confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied : firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either (i) omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for his assessment of that year. Both these conditions were conditions precedent to be satisfied before the Assessing Officer could have jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 read with section 147(a). But under the substituted section 147 existence of only the first condition suffices. In other words if the Assessing Officer for whatever reason has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment it confers jurisdiction to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d restrictions for the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under article 226. The court has held in para 15 and 16 as under (page 374 of 357 ITR) : Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the prin ciple of law as laid down by this court. It is settled law that non- entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self- imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the dis cretion of the High Court to grant relief under article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 . . . The Constitution Benches of this court in K. S. Rashid and Son v. Income-tax Investigation Commission, AIR 1954 SC 207 ; [1954] 25 ITR 167 (SC) ; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution when he had adequate remedy open to him by an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The remedy under the statute, however, must be effective and not a mere formality with no substantial relief. In Ram and Shyam Co v. State of Haryana [1985] 3 SCC 267 this court has noticed that if an appeal is from 'Caesar to Caesar's wife' the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility. In the instant case, nei ther has the assessee-writ petitioner described the available alternate remedy under the Act as ineffectual and non-efficacious while invok ing the writ jurisdiction of the High Court nor has the High Court ascribed cogent and satisfactory reasons to have exercised its juris diction in the facts of the instant case. 29. Learned counsel has further tried to authenticate his submissions in this behalf by placing reliance on the procedure to be adopted by the noticee on receipt of notice under section 148 of the Act and for that proposition laid stress on para 15 of the verdict of Division Bench in Banswara Synt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued under section 148 of the Act and, therefore, the appellant ought to have filed the reply immediately. In our opinion, the appellant has wrongly invoked the juris diction of this court. As already noticed, the writ petition is directed against the notice under section 147 of the Income-tax Act. This apart, the appellant has an alternative remedy of filing appropriate appeal before the appropriate authority provided under the Income- tax Act, 1961. In our view, there is no cause of action which has arisen for the appellant-petitioner for filing a writ petition and further appeal. Since the writ petition has been filed against the notice of reassess ment, we have no other option except to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable. However, the dismissal of the writ appeal will not stand in the way of the appellant's raising of legal contention by way of reply to the notice under section 147 of the Act along with the return if the return has not already been filed. On receipt of reply to the show-cause notice issued under section 147, the Income-tax Officer shall decide the objections filed legally and factually and then pass final orders in accordance with law after affording ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficient to give juris diction to the Income-tax Officer to issue the notices under section 34. Whether these grounds were adequate or not for arriving at the conclusion that there was a non-disclosure of material facts would not be open for the court's investigation. In other words, all that is necessary to give this special jurisdiction is that the Income-tax Officer had when he assumed jurisdiction some prima facie grounds for thinking that there had been some non-disclosure of material facts. Justice Das Gupta has further held (page 206) : It must, therefore, be held that the Income-tax Officer who issued the notices had not before him any non-disclosure of a material fact and so he could have no material before him for believing that there had been any material non-disclosure by reason of which an under assessment had taken place. We are, therefore, bound to hold that the conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction under section 34 of the Income-tax Act did not exist and the Income-tax Officer had therefore no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices under section 34 in respect of the years 1942-43, 1943-44 and 1944-45 after the expiry of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t prejudice to the contentions of the parties on the several questions raised in the petition and without prejudice to the orders that may ultimately be passed by the court. The fact that the assessment orders have already been made does not, therefore, affect the company's right to obtain relief under article 226. In view, how ever, of the fact that the assessment orders have already been made we think it proper that in addition to an order directing the Income- tax Officer not to take any action on the basis of the impugned notices a further order quashing the assessment made be also issued. 33. The connotation of the words reason to believe appearing in section 34((1)(a) of the Act of 1922 for reopening of the assessment once again came up before the hon'ble apex court in case of Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), and the court held as under (page 152) : It is abundantly clear that the two reasons which have been given for the belief which was formed by the Income-tax Officer hopelessly fail to satisfy the requirements of the statute. In a recent case- Chhugamal Rajpal v. S. P. Chaliha [1971] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons for starting proceedings in the present case on which any belief could be founded of the nature contemplated by section 34(1A). The so-called reasons are stated to be beliefs thus leading to an obvious self-contradiction. We are satisfied that the requirements of section 34(1A) were not satisfied and, therefore, the notices which had been issued were wholly illegal and invalid. 34. In yet another judgment on which the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance of the Gujarat High Court in J. V. Agrawal's case, has reiterated the same principles. 35. The Division Bench of this court in Biggabas Maheshwari Sewa Samiti's case (supra), while upholding the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, has reiterated the same principle and held as under in paragraphs 11 and 12. 11.Coming to question No. 1, a look at the judgment of the Tri bunal shows that the learned Tribunal has proceeded on two judgments of the hon'ble the Supreme Court, being in ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) and Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC). In Lakhmani Mewaldas's case (supra), it has been held, that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Legislature for inserting the words reason to believe by considering the precedents on which the learned counsel for the Revenue has relied on. The Division Bench of this court in Banswara Syntex case (supra) postulated certain guidelines for assessee on receipt of notice under section 148 of the Act quoted hereinabove. 37. Other judgment, on which the learned counsel for the Revenue has placed reliance, is a judgment of the hon'ble apex court in Raymond Woollen's case (supra) wherein the hon'ble apex court has held that while examining the notice under section 148 for reopening of assessment, the sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. 38. In Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) on which the learned counsel for the Revenue has placed heavy reliance, the hon'ble apex court has very specifically dealt with the scope and effect of section 147 as also sections 148 to 152 (amended with effect from April 1, 1989) and has postulated two conditions for conferment of jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment under section 147 of the Act. Paragraph 17 of the verdict quoted supra elab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot satisfy the test of expression reason to believe . Of course, evasion of tax is menace to the society but at the same time an assessee who is contributing to the exchequer in the form of tax cannot be allowed to suffer on mere pretence that it has evaded payment of tax. A rowing and fishing enquiry in the hands of the Assessing Officer on mere suspicion or change of opinion cannot satisfy the expression reason to believe exposing the assessee for reopening of assessment. My view is fully fortified from the judgment of the hon'ble apex court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. and Shivnath Singh's case (supra) besides the legal precedents on which learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance. The decision of the hon'ble apex court in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), on which the learned counsel for the Revenue has placed reliance, has also reiterated the same principles that for conferring jurisdiction under section 147(a) of the Act twin conditions are required to be satisfied ; firstly, the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax had escaped assessment, and, secondly, he must also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable. 44. Thus, applying the ratio decidendi of the decision of the hon'ble apex court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra), and the true purport of reasons spelt out in Mohanlal Capoor's case (supra), the impugned order rejecting objections of the assessees is based on mere ipse dixit of the Assessing Officer. This sort of situation has really furnished a cause of grievance to the petitioner-assessees, thereby seeking shelter of great humanizing principles, i.e., the principles of natural justice. It is trite that any quasi-judicial or administrative authority is required to pass a reasoned order when it visits the recipient with civil consequences and it is one of the facets of the principles of audi alteram partem. 45. The issue relating to the embargo for reopening of the assessment as envisaged under the third proviso to section 147 of the Act vociferously canvassed by the petitioners has not been examined for the simple reason that the court felt persuaded on other counts to annu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases, has relegated the assessee to alternative remedy 49. In order to appreciate the concept of alternative remedy in the background of the facts of the instant case, more particularly the findings recorded supra, that notices issued to the assessees under section 147/148 of the Act are falling short of requisites prescribed under the statute and the reasons for reopening of assessment is for verifying or verification of the existing material. The action of the Assessing Officer is, therefore, per se founded on mere change of opinion and the same cannot satisfy the legislative intent that it has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The hon'ble apex court, in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (supra), per majority, has overruled the objection of availability of alternative remedy and while quashing the impugned notice has also quashed the assessment order. In the case of Mariamma Roy v. Indian Bank [2009] 16 SCC 187, the hon'ble apex court while entertaining a writ petition against an order has overruled the objection of availability of alternative remedy on the ground that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, has held that a writ can be maintained against a show-cause notice when it is issued with premeditation. 52. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Moriroku UT India P. Ltd. v. State of U. P. [2009] 245 ELT 27 (All), overruled the objection of maintainability of a writ petition against show-cause notice as well as the availability of alternative remedy under certain circumstances. Speaking for the Bench, Justice B .S. Chauhan has held as under : Therefore, it is evident that where the notice itself makes it abun dantly clear that the authority has already made up his mind and is likely to pass an order in a particular manner, submission of reply or hearing would be an empty formality. Thus, party be not asked to avail of alternative remedy. 53. Thus, in totality, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the objection of the respondent-Revenue against maintainability of a writ petition on the anvil of availability of alternative statutory remedy cannot be sustained and the same is hereby overruled. 54. While examining the matter in its entirety and o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
