M/S SANSKRITI BUIL- DEV PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

CW/10304/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02049687202307 August 2023Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present case is not one for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court. The court relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Others, (1998) 8 SCC 1, which states that writ jurisdiction should not be ordinarily invoked when an efficacious and statutory remedy is available. The court found no grounds challenging the jurisdiction of the authority or alleging that the order was passed without any opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all grounds before the appellate authority, and the period during which the writ petition remained pending before the High Court was to be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the statutory appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Sanskriti Buil-Dev Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging an assessment order dated 29.05.2023. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer passed the order summarily without proper consideration of their reply and the applicable facts and law. The petition was filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, bypassing the alternative remedy of filing an appeal. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur, and the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Center, New Delhi.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner? (Question of law, turning on the principles of writ jurisdiction and alternative remedies). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the writ jurisdiction should be invoked because the assessment order was passed without proper consideration of their reply and in a summary manner, despite the existence of an alternative remedy. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue. However, the court's reasoning implies that the revenue would likely rely on the existence of the alternative remedy.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2023:RJ-JP:16881-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10304/2023 M/s Sanskriti Buil- Dev Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office At Khasra No. 792 To 797, Village Thikariya, Near Bagru Toll Plaza, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302026, Through Its Director, Mr. Sanchit Gupta, S/o Mr. Jayesh Ranjan Gupta, Aged 38 Years, Residence At R-20, Raj Aangan, Haldi Ghati Marg, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur- 302022. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur, Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government of India, NCR Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur 2. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Center, New Delhi, Delhi 110001 ----Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Mahi Yadav Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Kumar Yadav Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order 07/08/2023 Heard. This writ petition has been filed against assessment order dated 29.05.2023 passed in assessment proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court even though there exists alternative remedy of filing appeal for the reason that there is no proper consideration of the reply of the petitioner and Assessing Officer has passed the order in a

[2023:RJ-JP:16881-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-10304/2023] summary manner without due consideration of facts and law applicable in the case. In the absence of there being any ground of challenge to the jurisdiction of the authority or that the order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing whatsoever, in our opinion, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Trade Marks, Mumbai & Others, (1998) 8 SCC 1, present is not a case for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction as the petitioner is having efficacious and statutory remedy of filing appeal. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to raise all the grounds which have been raised in this petition as also such other grounds which may be available to it under the law. Before parting with the case, we would observe that while computing the period of limitation for filing statutory appeal, the period during which this petition remained pending before this Court shall be excluded. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J MANOJ NARWANI /11

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →