9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t colleges, schools and other educational organisations existing solely for educational purposes, and taking note of the said object, exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, "the Act") was also being granted to the petitioner in respect of all its income arising from the educational institutions. Even though the Department denied exemption on the ground that the petitioner is not an educational institution within the meaning of Section 10(22) of the Act, this Court in Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aditanar Educational Institution [1979] 118 ITR 235, held in favour of the petitioner and the same was confirmed by the Apex Court in Aditanar Educational Institution Vs. Additional Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the petitioner seeking reasons for reopening and stating that the returns have already been filed on 7.12.2005, the respondent informed that there are violations to Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, as the petitioner was holding shares of Limited companies, and as a consequence the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Act are not applicable. Questioning the validity of the reopening of assessments, the petitioner sent a reply on 21.12.2005. But, by proceedings dated 18.1.2006, stated as 18.1.2005, rejected the objection raised by the petitioner, without giving an opportunity. Hence, W.P.Nos.2107 to 2109 of 2006. 6. Mr. G. Sarangan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the shares were acquired by the petitioner long before 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be permitted to urge that as a ground to exercise the discretion conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in his favour, vide A.V. Venkateswaran Collector of Customs v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1506. 10. Again in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 =AIR 1983 SC 603, a Bench of Three Judges of the Apex Court held that where efficacious statutory alternative remedy is available in the statute by way of an appeal and second appeal under the Sales Tax Act, and the petitioner failed to avail relief in the appeals, the writ petition is not maintainable in law. In the said decision, it is held that (page 671) : "The Act provides for a complete machinery to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AIR 1961 SC 609; (iv) Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa , AIR 1983 SC 603; (v) Asst. Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd., AIR 1985 SC 330; (vi) Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh, AIR 1999 SC 2859; and (vii) A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S.Chellappan, 2000 (7) SCC 695, a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. K.Nedunchezhian v. Deputy CIT, [2005] 279 ITR 342, held that when there is an alternative remedy, it may not be proper for this Court to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the above principles apply with great force in tax proceedings. 13. In State of H.P. Ors. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., [2005] JT 6 SC 228, the Apex Court held the relief under Article 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Ltd., 1966 (3) SCR 84, and State of U.P. v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., 1977 (2) SCC 724. That being the position, we do not consider the High Court's judgment to be vulnerable on the ground that alternative remedy was not availed. There are two well-recognised exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies. First is when the proceedings are taken before the forum under a provision of law which is ultra vires, it is open to a party aggrieved thereby to move the High Court for quashing the proceedings on the ground that they are incompetent without a party being obliged to wait until those proceedings run their full course. Secondly, the doctrine has no application when the impugned order has been made in violatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . stated in this case: 'It has always been a principle that certiorari will go only where there is no other equally effective and convenient remedy. . ." The statutory system of appeals is more effective and more convenient than an application for certiorari and the principal reason why it may prove itself to be more convenient and more effective is that an appeal to [say] the Secretary of State can be disposed of at one hearing. Whether the issue between them is a matter of law or fact or policy or opinion or a combination of some or all of these …. whereas of course an application for certiorari is limited to cases where the issue is a matter of law and then only it is a matter of law appearing on the face of the order." "An appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
