MAHAMAYA FOODS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
WPT/64/2018HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01010819201819 April 2018Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The Court found that alternative efficacious remedies are available to the petitioner under Sections 246-A, 254, and 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court distinguished the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in Smt. Kamla Ojha (supra) as clearly distinguishable to the facts of the present case. The Court granted the petitioner three weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the appropriate authorities, who were directed to consider and decide the appeal on merits expeditiously. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

What were the facts?

The applicant, Mahamaya Foods & Grains Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, challenging an assessment order dated 30.12.2017 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur, and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Korba. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was without jurisdiction and authority of law, citing a previous High Court judgment. The revenue contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as alternative statutory remedies were available.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court when alternative efficacious remedies are available under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The impugned assessment order is without jurisdiction and authority of law, and therefore, liable to be set aside. The assessee relied on the judgment in Smt. Kamala Ojha Vs. Income Tax Officer-1 and four others (Writ Petition (T) No. 177 of 2016, decided on 19.06.2017). Revenue's Contention: The order of assessment dated 30.12.2017 is appealable under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Further appeals lie before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254 and then before the High Court under Section 260-A. Therefore, a direct writ petition 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

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (T) No. 64 of 2018 Mahamaya Foods & Grains Pvt. Ltd., a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956/2013 having its offices at Ram Mandir Road, Bhittikala, Ambikapur, Sarguja through one of its Directors, Shri Anil Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Agrawal, aged about 53 years, R/o Villa 31, Maruti Life Styple, Kota, Raipur (C.G.) ---- Applicant Versus

1.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur, Aaykar Bhavan, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.)

2.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Circle Korba, Mahanadi Complex, Korba (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Smiti Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mrs. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 20/04/2018 (1) This writ petition is directed against the assessment order dated 30.12.2017 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).

2 (3) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that order of assessment dated 30.12.2017 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

D/-

3

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →