9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erusing the sequence of facts as noticed above, we find that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal against the final reassessment order dated 31.3.2016 passed by respondent No.1 under sections 143/147 of the Act In view of above, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed - CWP No.6983 of 2016 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 9-5-2016 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS. RAJ RAHUL GARG, JJ. For The Petitoner : Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Gupta, Mr. Mukal Aggarwal and Mr. Rohit Jain, Advocates Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The petitioner prays for quashing the notice dated 24.3.2015 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ) for the assessment year 2008-09, order dated 21.3.2016 disposing of the legal objections filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings and final order dated 31.3.2016 passed under section 143(3)/147 of the Act reassessing the income of the petitioner. 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The legal objections were however, dismissed by respondent No.1 vide order dated 21.3.2016, Annexure P.1 which was received by the petitioner on 28.3.2016 i.e. three days prior to the limitation period for completion of assessment, leaving no time for the petitioner to approach this court to assail the said order. Respondent No.1 however, proceeded to complete reassessment vide final order dated 31.3.2016 under section 143/147 of the Act i.e. within three days of receipt of order disposing of the legal objections without providing adequate opportunity to make further submissions. Hence the instant writ petition. 3. We have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. 4. Admittedly, the original assessment order was passed on 27.12.2010 under section 143(3) of the Act. The petitioner filed appeal before the CIT(A). Vide order dated 11.7.2011, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. Against the said order, the petitioner as well as the department filed appeals before the Tribunal which are pending. During the pendency of the appeal, order under section 263 of the Act was passed by the CIT while exercising revisionary jurisdiction on certain issues. Further additions/disall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing passage: There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute. . . . But there is a third class, viz. where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it. . .the remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to. The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd. and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant Co. Ltd. and Secretary of State v. Mask Co. It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine. 6. Following the above judgment, the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. and others (1985) 1 SCC 260 observed as under:- Article 226 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. (See:State of U.P. vs. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86; Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433; Harbanslal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107; State of H.P. vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499). 16. The Constitution Benches of this Court in K.S. Rashid and Sons vs. Income Tax Investigation Commission, AIR 1954 SC 207; Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425; Union of India vs. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882; State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86 and K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 1089 have held that though Article 226 confers a very wide powers in the matter of issuing writs on the High Court, the remedy of writ absolutely discretionary in character. If the High Court is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of natura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rworks Co. v. Hawkesford, 141 ER 486 in the following passage: (ER p. 495) There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon a statute. But there is a third class viz. where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it. The remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to. The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd., 1919 AC 368 and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Co. Ltd., 1935 AC 532 (PC) and Secy. of State v. Mask and Co., AIR 1940 PC 105 It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine. 14. In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. (speaking for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Titagarh Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. 20. In the instant case, the Act provides complete machinery for the assessment/re-assessment of tax, imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, and the assessee could not be permitted 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. vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 3 SCC 267 this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
