HARMEET SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7150/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01040059202422 March 2024Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. The Court observed that an appeal lies against the assessment order dated 20.02.2024, which was impugned in the Writ Petition. The petitioner's reliance on the Supreme Court's order in Red Chilly International Sales. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Another was found to be misplaced, as that case dealt with a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The present case involved an order under Section 144B of the Act. The Court found that the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. Commercial Engineers and Body Building Company Ltd.; 2022 SCC Online SC 1425, which emphasizes the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, would have application. Therefore, the Writ Petition was dismissed on the ground of an efficacious alternative remedy being available.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harmeet Singh, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an assessment order dated 20.02.2024. The Income Tax Officer, Patiala, was the respondent. The petitioner sought to rely on a Supreme Court order in the case of Red Chilly International Sales. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Another concerning a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the present case pertains to an order passed under Section 144B of the Act. The High Court noted that an appeal lies against the impugned assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present Writ Petition is maintainable when an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal is available against the assessment order dated 20.02.2024 under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 144B and the general principles of alternative remedies). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's order in Red Chilly International Sales. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Another to argue for the maintainability of the writ petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue, but the court's reasoning implies that the revenue would likely argue for the dismissal of the writ petition on the grounds of alternative remedy.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

{2024:PHHC:042110-DB}

113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-7150-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.03.2024

HARMEET SINGH

..…...Petitioner

V/s. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATIALA ….....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr. Sunil K. Mukhi, Advocate

for the petitioner.

*** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)

1.

It is noticed that an appeal lies against the assessment order dated 20.02.2024 impugned in this Writ Petition by the petitioner.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relies on the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Red Chilly International Sales. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Another; in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.86/2023. 3. We find that the order passed by the Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner is with reference to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has been examined independently by the Supreme Court in earlier judgments too. The case before us is against the order passed under Section 144B of the Act, and therefore, the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (Supra), would have application and the facts of this case are different.

4.

Allowing the petitioner to file an appeal, this Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground of efficacious alternative remedy available in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar 2024.04.02 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

{2024:PHHC:042110-DB} CWP-7150-2024 (O&M) State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. Commercial Engineers and Body Building Company Ltd.; 2022 SCC Online SC 1425. 5. All pending applications filed in this case shall stand disposed of accordingly.

[SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA]

JUDGE

March 22, 2024

[SUDEEPTI SHARMA] Ess Kay

JUDGE

Whether speaking / reasoned

:

Yes / No Whether Reportable

:

Yes / No Suresh Kumar 2024.04.02 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →