9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- 18-3-2019 - MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, JJ. For The Petitioner (s) : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate ORDER AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the assessment order dated 30.12.2018 (Annexure P-31), passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the averments made in the writ petition, we find that the disputed questions of fact have been sought to be raised in the writ petition. Further, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal against the impugned order. The Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... axes , AIR 1964 SC 1419 this Court adverted to the rule of selfimposed restraint that the writ petition will not be entertained if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and observed: (AIR p. 1423, para 7). 7. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Articl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the majority of the larger Bench) observed: (SCC p. 607, para 77) 77. So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226-or for that matter, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32-is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and curtail these remedies. It is, however, equally obvious that while exercising the power under Article 226/Article 32, the Court would certainly take note of the legislat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid 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 act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) 166 PLR 345, considering the question of entertaining writ petition where alternate statutory remedy was available, had in paras 6 and 7 observed thus :- 6. The following are the broad principles when a writ petition can be entertained without insisting for adopting statutory remedies:- i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. 7. We are not inclined to entertain this petition against the assessment order as it does not fulfil any of the broad outlines noticed herein above..... . 4. Keeping in vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
