9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;), for the Assessment Year 2010-11. A further prayer has also been made for directing the respondents to refund the adjusted refund processed for Assessment Year 2018-19 along with interest. 2. A perusal of the writ petition shows that the challenge has been made to the orders Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3 on the grounds that no notice was ever served upon the petitioner and accordingly, the ex-parte Assessment Order passed under Sections 144/147 of the Act was bad. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in R.K. Upadhyaya Vs. Shanabhai P. Patel, (1987) 166 ITR 163, as well as of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chetan Gupta, (2016) 382 ITR 613 (Del) and Veena Devi Karnani Vs. Income Tax Officer, ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting 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 v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TO, (2003) 1 SCC 72). 17. 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 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 the majority of the larger Bench) observed: (SCC p. 607, para 77) "77. ... So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 sought in that forum and in that manner, and all the other forums and modes of seeking [remedy] are excluded."" 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner described the available alternate remedy under the Act as ineffectual and non-efficacious while invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court nor has the High Court ascribed cogent and satisfactory reasons to have exercised its jurisdiction in the facts of instant case." 5. Keeping in view the availability of alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order(s) and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the issue, we do not find any ground to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, we dismiss the present writ petition by relegating the petitioner to take recourse to the remedies as may be available to him before the appropriate Forum, in accordance w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
