KASHINATH AND CO. PVT LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(1)AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WPO/2636/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCO005098202223 September 2022Author: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable when the petitioner has a statutory remedy available. The Court observed that the impugned order was passed after observing the required legal formalities, including issuing a notice under Section 148A(b) and providing an opportunity for hearing. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the reasoning or merit of the order passed under Section 148A(d), they can raise these grievances during the proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's view in the case of Anshul Jain vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. dated September 2, 2022. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kashinath and Co. Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta challenging an order dated July 29, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order pertains to the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner was aggrieved by the reasoning and merit of the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(1) and others. The High Court heard arguments from both the petitioner and the respondents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has a statutory remedy available under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to agitate grievances on merit against an order passed under Section 148A(d)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner is challenging the order passed under Section 148A(d) and seeks relief through a writ petition. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the petitioner has a clear statutory remedy under Section 148 of the Act to address any dissatisfaction with the order passed under Section 148A(d) and that the writ petition is not the appropriate forum for challenging the merits of the order. The revenue relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Anshul Jain vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(d),Section 148A(b),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD –5 ORDER SHEET WPO/2636/2022 BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date: 23rd September, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Rites Goel, Adv. …For the Petitioner Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. …For the Respondents The Court: Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 29th July, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to assessment year 2016-17 being annexure P-10 to the writ petition. I have perused the aforesaid impugned order. I am of the view that once an order has been passed after observing formalities required under the law by issuance of notice under Section 148A(b), giving opportunity of hearing to file an objection to the same and after that if the order has been passed by the authority under Section 148A(d) and if the petitioner is not satisfied with the reasoning and if he has got grievance on merit of the same, he may agitate the same in course of proceedings under Section 148 of the Act as the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the order Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 14823/2022. Accordingly, this writ petition being WPO 2636 of 2022 is dismissed.

(MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) TR/

More judgments on Section 148A(d)

All 544 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →