JASWINDER SINGH ARORA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.

Facts

The petitioner, Jaswinder Singh Arora, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking to quash an assessment order dated December 30, 2018, passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar, and another. The High Court noted that the writ petition raised disputed questions of fact and that the petitioner had an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal against the impugned order. The Court referenced Supreme Court judgments, particularly Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, which elaborated on the principle of not entertaining writ petitions when an alternative statutory remedy is available, unless exceptional circumstances exist.

Held

The High Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. It reiterated the well-settled principle that when a statute provides a specific remedy for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained, ignoring the statutory dispensation. The Court cited numerous Supreme Court judgments, including Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, Larsen and Toubro Limited vs. The State of Haryana and others, and others, emphasizing that the existence of an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy is a rule of self-imposed limitation for writ jurisdiction. The Court found that the Income Tax Act provides a complete machinery for assessment/re-assessment and obtaining relief, and the petitioner could not abandon this machinery to invoke the High Court's jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioner was relegated to take recourse to the statutory remedy of appeal. No issue was left undecided; the petition was disposed of on the preliminary ground of alternative remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India when an alternative efficacious statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner against the assessment order passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contention: The petitioner approached the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the petitioner's counsel regarding why the alternative remedy should be bypassed. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue's counsel. However, the High Court's reasoning implies that the existence of an alternative remedy is a strong ground for dismissal of a writ petition.