Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1207 - MADRAS HIGH COURTProceedings u/s 179 against director in respect of demand of company - vide impugned order, AO held that the writ petitioner, a natural person, is jointly and severally liable towards the tax liability and penalty imposed on company - alternate remedy - revision u/s 264 - HELD THAT:- A perusal of provision i.e., Section 264 reveals that said Revisional Authority has powers to enquire into the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order and said Revisional Authority has powers which includes powers to make orders which are not prejudicial to the assessee. Therefore, it is clear that u/s 264 writ petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of a statutory revision u/s 264 to said Revisional Authority. The rule of alternate remedy no doubt is a self imposed restraint by Courts exercising writ jurisdiction. In other words, rule of alternate remedy is not a rule of compulsion, but it is a rule of discretion. This Court has no hesitation in holding that alternate remedy though a rule of discretion and not a rule of compulsion, has to be applied with utmost rigour when it comes to fiscal law statutes and in the instant case it applies with all force for two reasons. First reason is, though it is a rule of discretion, Court would interfere on the teeth of alternate remedy only when it falls within the exceptions set out in the long line of authorities. Those exceptions are, (a) lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Authority passing the order, (b) violation of principles of natural justice, (c) a well settled position of law being disregarded and (d) alternative remedy being ineffectual or not efficacious. To be noted, this adumbration of exceptions is not exhaustive, but is only a broad outline which is imperative for appreciating the instant order. The instant case does not fall under any of the exceptions. The other reason is, a perusal of SCN, reply and impugned order reveals that the matter turns heavily on factual disputations. As already alluded a perusal of Section 264 makes it clear that writ petitioner has an effective and efficacious alternate remedy as the said Revisional Authority has powers to pass orders which are not prejudicial to the assessee by revising the impugned order. This position is reiterated by learned Revenue counsel. Time frame prescribed u/s 264 - As per time frame prescribed u/s 264(3), the writ petitioner has to file revision within one year from the date on which the impugned order was communicated to the writ petitioner. From the narrative thus far, it comes to light that the impugned order is dated 24.01.2019 and learned counsel for writ petitioner submits, on instructions, that it has been served on/communicated to the writ petitioner on 31.01.2019. Therefore, it is clear that the writ petitioner is well within the time to file a revision u/s 264 before said Revisional Authority. This writ petition is disposed of preserving the rights of the writ petitioner to avail alternate remedy by way of a statutory revision u/s 26. Though obvious, it is made clear that all contentions raised by the writ petitioner are left open and can be raised before the statutory Appellate Authority. It is also made clear that such a course is being adopted as perusal of the impugned order and reply to the SCN reveals that it turns heavily on facts as already alluded to supra. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
|