SCAN ISPATS LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WPT/88/2018HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01013821201807 May 2018Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court found that alternative efficacious remedies were available to the petitioner under Sections 246-A, 254, and 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court distinguished the present case from the precedent cited by the petitioner (Smt. Kamla Ojha). The Court granted the petitioner three weeks to prefer an appeal before the appropriate authorities, who were directed to decide the appeal on merits expeditiously. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Scan Ispats Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh challenging an assessment order dated December 18, 2017, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was without jurisdiction and authority of law. The respondents, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and others, argued that the assessment order was appealable under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act before the Commissioner (Appeals), with further appeals available to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and then to the High Court under Section 260-A. Therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court when alternative efficacious remedies are available under the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order was without jurisdiction and authority of law, and therefore, liable to be set aside. They relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in Smt. Kamala Ojha Vs. Income Tax Officer-1. Revenue's Contention: The respondents contended that the assessment order dated December 18, 2017, is appealable under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Commissioner (Appeals). Further appeals lie before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254 and then to the High Court under Section 260-A. Consequently, the writ petition filed directly before the High Court is not maintainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 246-A,Section 254,Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPT No. 88 of 2018 Scan Ispats Limited, Present Address : 22 Km Stone, Vill Punjipathra, Gharghora Road, Raigarh (C.G.), Pin – 496001 (Previously at Flat No. 202, C-Block, 2nd Floor, Luis Road, Bhubaneshwar 752007) ---- Petitioner Versus

1.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawan, Vyapar Bihar, P.S. Tarbahar, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pin 495001

2.

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 1, Income tax Office, Mahima Complex, Vyapar Vihar, P.S. Tarbahar, Bilaspur (C.G.), Pin 495001

3.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Income Tax Office, Mahima Complex, Vyapar Vihar, P.S. Tarbahar, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pin 495001 ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. S. Rajeshwara Rao, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 08/05/18

1.

This writ petition is directed against the assessment order dated 18.12.2017 passed under Section 143 (3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (henceforth “Act, 1961”).

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that impugned order is without jurisdiction and without authority of law, which is liable to be set aside and relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition (T) No. 177 of 2016, decided on 19.06.2017 (Smt. Kamala Ojha Vs. Income Tax Officer-1 and four others).

3.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that order of assessment dated 18.12.2017 is appealable under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (henceforth “Act, 1961”) before the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals) and even against order of Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals), the petitioner can file appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act, 1961 and then he has further remedy of filing appeal before this Court under Section 260-A of the Act, 1961 there- against, therefore, the instant writ petition, which is directly filed before this Court, is not maintainable.

4.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection.

5.

Since the alternative efficacious remedy under Sections 246-A, 254 & 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is available to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the judgment in case of Smt. Kamla Ojha (supra) is clearly distinguishable to the facts of the present case. However, petitioner is granted three weeks' time to prefer appeal before the said authorities and, in turn, the said Authorities shall consider and decide the same on merits in accordance with law expeditiously.

6.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →