BHAG CHAND JANGID vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJASTHAN

PDF · subscribers
CW/5819/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02025858202317 April 2023Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,ANIL KUMAR UPMAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it would not exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the orders. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's failure to challenge the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act when it was passed on March 26, 2022, and the subsequent passing of the assessment order on March 9, 2023. The court found that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy available. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. All issues raised in the petition were left open to be considered in an appeal that may be filed by the petitioner. No specific issue was left undecided by the Tribunal; rather, the entire petition was dismissed on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bhag Chand Jangid, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, challenging actions taken by the Income Tax Department. The order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act was passed on March 26, 2022. The petitioner did not challenge this order. Subsequently, an assessment order was passed on March 9, 2023. The writ petition was filed on March 31, 2023, after the assessment order was made. The court noted the delay in challenging the Section 148A(d) order and the subsequent passing of the assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the orders passed by the Income Tax Department, given the petitioner's failure to challenge the order under Section 148A(d) when it was passed and the subsequent passing of the assessment order. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the petitioner regarding the merits of the case or the reasons for not challenging the Section 148A(d) order earlier. The petitioner's argument, if any, would have been implicitly aimed at seeking relief from the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's implicit contention, as understood from the court's reasoning, would be that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy available, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2023/RJJP/006785] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5819/2023 Bhag Chand Jangid, 5 Mukhya Gaon Chhandel Kala, Chaksu Jaipur 303901, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajasthan, Jaipur, Income Tax Department, NCRB, Statue Circle, Jaipur. 2. Income Tax Department, Ward 7(2), Sidhnath Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar Scheme, Lal Kothi Behind New Vidhansabha, Janpath, Jaipur. 3. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Ministry Of Finance, Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi- 110003 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Priyesh Kasliwal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Advocate with Ms. Jaya P Pathak, Advocate HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order 17/04/2023 Though number of issues are raised in this petition, we find that the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act was passed way-back on 26.03.2022. The petitioner did not choose to challenge this order. Finally assessment order has also been passed on 09.03.2023. This petition has been filed on 31.03.2023. In the aforesaid circumstances, when the petitioner did not take any remedy to challenge the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act when it was passed on 26.03.2022, we are not

[2023/RJJP/006785] (2 of 2) [CW-5819/2023] inclined to exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order as the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy. All the issues are left open for being considered in the appeal that may be filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to take remedy available under the law. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ Karan/18

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 →