9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come Tax Act the assessment was completed by the Assessment Officer in respect of the petitioner and a total amount of Rs. 5,28,13,970/- (Rupees Five Crore Twenty-eight Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy) including tax, interest and penalty and arrears were found to be chargeable against the writ petitioner and a Demand Notice to that effect was raised. 3. The petitioner, aggrieved by the Assessment Order filed an appeal before the Commissioner's Office and the counsel for the petitioner states that the appeal is presently pending but no effective order has been passed thereon. Under such circumstances, the writ petition has been filed praying for setting aside the Assessment Order dated 31.03.2022 as well as the consequential Demand Notice. 4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, Mr. S. Chetia, submits that since there is already an appeal which is preferred against the Assessment Order and the same is presently pending, the writ petition ought not to have been filed by the petitioner as he had already taken recourse to the statutory alternative remedy prescribed. Under such circumstances it is submitted that during the currency of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals). As is evident from the pleadings and also from the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties against the Assessment Order 31.03.2022 passed by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, the petitioner has already approached the statutory authority, namely Commissioner (Appeals) by filing an appeal against the said Order. The appeal is still pending disposal before the Appellate Authority. While there is no quarrel with the proposition that extraordinary powers of High Court under Article 226/227 cannot be girdled by statutes, however, the powers exercised by the Courts are subject to such restrictions which are self imposed by the constitutional courts where there is a prescribed statutory forum for redressal of the grievance of a litigant, then the constitutional court will not exercise its jurisdiction to redress the grievance of the petitioner, more particularly where the litigant has already approached the said statutory prescribed forum and the matter is presently pending disposal there. It has been the consistent view of the Apex Court and followed by several High Courts in the country including this Court that where there are statutory remedies prescribed origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted. 13. In Nivedita Sharma vs. Cellular Operators Assn. of India, (2011) 14 SCC 337, this Court has held that where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction for relief and observed as follows: "12. In Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt. of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419 this Court adverted to the rule of self-imposed restraint that the writ petition will not be entertai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 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 legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment."" 14. In Union of India vs. Guwahati Carbon Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 651, this Court has reiterated the aforesaid principle and observed: "8. Before we discuss the correctness of the impugned order, we intend to remind ourselves the observations made by this Court in Munshi Ram v. Municipal Committee, Chheharta, (1979) 3 SCC 83. In the said decision, this Court was pleased to observe that: (SCC p. 88, para 23). "23. ... when a revenue statute provides for a person aggrieved by an assessment thereunder, a particular remedy to be sought in a particular forum, in a particular way, it must be sou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the assessee, wherein he has only questioned the correctness or otherwise of the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, the re-assessment orders passed and the consequential demand notices issued thereon." 10. Under such circumstances, the petitioner having availed all the statutory remedy, this Court, without the said appeal being disposed of and more particularly when the said appeal was filed prior to filing of the present writ petition, this Court is disinclined to accept the contention of the writ petitioner. The petitioner has not raised this contention before the Court by referring to the relevant provisions and/or the orders passed by the departmental authorities that the appeal before the Appellate Authority is not efficacious and will not provide adequate relief as prayed for by that forum. It appears from the facts urged that the only reason for approaching this Court is to evade payment of the statutory deposit which is prescribed under the Act while preferring the appeal. Such attempt may be made by the petitioner cannot be permitted, more particularly in the manner sought to be done by taking recourse to filing a writ petition before this Court during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
