MNS REAL ESTATE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that a writ petition is not maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal has already been availed and is pending. The reasoning was that two parallel remedies cannot be allowed to continue. Since the petitioner had already preferred an appeal, the writ petition was not maintainable. The Tribunal stated that all grounds raised in the writ petition would be available to be raised in the pending appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal as early as possible. No specific issue was left undecided, as the petition was disposed of on procedural grounds.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Mns Real Estate, through its partner Mohammed Shokat Qureshi, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The respondents were the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1), and the National Faceless Assessment Centre. The petitioner sought to challenge certain orders or actions of the revenue authorities. However, it was acknowledged by both the petitioner's and respondents' counsel that the petitioner had already availed an alternative remedy by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was pending consideration.
What were the issues?
1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal has already been availed and is pending before the Appellate Authority? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner raised various issues for consideration in the writ petition. (No specific arguments or authorities cited for this point in the judgment). Revenue's Contention: The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner had availed the alternative remedy of appeal, which was pending. (No specific arguments or authorities cited for this point in the judgment).
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 02/09/2024
Heard.
Though learned counsel for the petitioner raised various issues for consideration by way of this writ petition, he is not in a position to dispute and it is also not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, that the petitioner has already availed the alternative remedy of appeal, which is pending consideration before the Appellate Authority.
Two parallel remedies cannot be allowed to continue. As the petitioner has already preferred the appeal, this petition is not maintainable. All the grounds which have been raised in this
[2024:RJ-JP:36688-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-10890/2023] petition shall be available to be raised in the appeal pending before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority shall do well to decide the appeal as early as possible.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ Kamlesh Kumar-RAHUL/4
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
