9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observation made in this order which may come across as an observation on merits or which may come across as an observation having the trappings of an expression of opinion on merits of the matter. - W.P.(MD)No.2387 of 2020 And W.M.P(MD).No.2043 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 4-1-2022 - Honourable Mr.Justice M.Sundar For the Petitioner : Mr.V.Veerapandian For the Respondents : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax for R1 Ms.S.Ragaventhre, Junior Standing Counsel for Central Excise and Customs ORDER ******************** In the captioned main writ petition an 'assessment order dated 09.12.2019 bearing reference No.ITBA / ASTS /S /144 / 2019-20 / 1021992420(1)' and a consequential 'demand notice which has also dated 09.12.2019 bearing reference No. ITBA / AST / S / 156 / 2019-20 / 1021992539(1)' have been assailed and the same shall be collectively referred to as 'impugned orders' for the sake of convenience and clarity. 2. Mr.V.Veerapandian, learned counsel for writ petitioner notwithstanding very many averments made in the writ affidavit and very many grounds raised in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing office. It is pertinent to state that the then assessing officer was very much available on the date of hearing i.e. on 29.11.2019 and the then assessing officer was not on leave at all. I do not propose to enter upon the aforementioned factual disputation in writ jurisdiction. 4. This takes us to the other submissions made by learned Revenue counsel. Learned Revenue counsel submits that the 23.11.2019 show cause notice is not the first and lone notice which the writ petitioner was served with. Adverting to typed set of papers filed along with the counter-affidavit, learned Revenue counsel submitted that a notice under Section 143(2) of 'the Income Tax Act, 1961' [hereinafter 'IT Act' for the sake of convenience and brevity] dated 10.08.2018 was issued followed by another notice under Section 143(2) of IT Act dated 28.09.2018. Both these notices did not evoke any reply is learned Revenue counsel's say. Thereafter, a notice dated 14.01.2019 under Section 142(1) of IT Act was issued and it is only after all of these that aforementioned 23.11.2019 show cause notice was issued is learned Revenue counsel's emphatic say. 5. Learned counsel for writ p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice certainly needs to be strongly discouraged.' (Underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis and highlight) Relevant paragraph in K.C.Mathew case is paragraph 10 and the same reads as follows: '10. In Satyawati Tondon the High Court had restrained further proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Act. Upon a detailed consideration of the statutory scheme under the SARFAESI Act, the availability of remedy to the aggrieved under Section 17 before the Tribunal and the appellate remedy under Section 18 before the Appellate Tribunal, the object and purpose of the legislation, it was observed that a writ petition ought not to be entertained in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hree Member Hon'ble Bench had culled out the exceptions to the alternate remedy rule and had clearly held that interference in writ jurisdiction will arise only in exceptional cases where the exception adumbrated therein are attracted. Relevant paragraphs in Commercial Steel case law are paragraph Nos. 11, 12 and the same read as follows: '11 The respondent had a statutory remedy under section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is: (i) a breach of fundamental rights; (ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or (iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation. 12 In the present case, none of the above exceptions was established. There was, in fact, no violation of the principles of natural justice since a notice was served on the person in charge of the conveyance. In this backdrop, it was CA 5121/2021 7 not appropriat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
