AJAY CHOUHAN vs. UNION OF INDIA

WPT/103/2025HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01030029202504 August 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that an efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioners by way of an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petitions as withdrawn. The Court granted the petitioner 30 days to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority. If an appeal is filed, the appellate authority was directed to decide it expeditiously after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original dispute, as the petitions were withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Chouhan Housing Company and Ajay Chouhan, filed writ petitions before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The petitions challenged an order or action by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central-1, Raipur. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that the petitions were heard by the High Court, and the respondents' counsel pointed out the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable before the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is available? (Question of law) The assessee's counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the appellate authority and requested a direction for expeditious disposal of the appeal. The revenue's counsel contended that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CGHC010300362025

2026:CGHC:34311

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 102 of 2025 • Chouhan Housing Company Partner Of Shri Ajay Chouhan Son Of Late Shri Vipat Chouhan Aged About 58 Years, O/f 1st Floor, Chouhan Estate, G.E. Road, Supela, Bhilai, Durg C.G.

--- Petitioner versus 1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Director General Of Income Tax (Investigation), Aaykar Bhanwan, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal M.P. 3. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1, C B D Building, Nava Raipur, Raipur C.G.

--- Respondent(s) WPT No. 103 of 2025 • Ajay Chouhan S/o Late Shri Vipat Chouhan Aged About 58 Years R/o Chouhan Residency, Rajeev Nagar, Muktidham Road, Azad Chouk, Supela Bhilai, Tah And Distt. Durg- 490023 C.G.

---Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Director General Of Income Tax (Investigation), Aaykar Bhanwan, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal M P 3. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central-1, C B D Building, Nava Raipur, Raipur C.G.

--- Respondent(s) For Petitioners

: Mr. S. Rajeshwara Rao, Advocate along with Ms. Monika Singh, Advocate For Union of India : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.08.06 12:26:20 +0530

2 For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05.08

.2026

Learned counsel appearing for respondents would submit that there is efficacious alternative remedy available in favour of the petitioners. He may prefer appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] according to the provisions of Section 246A of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At this stage, Mr. Rajeshwara Rao, Advocate would seek permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach appellate authority. However, he would pray that a direction may be issued to the appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously. 3. Heard. 4. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by respective Advocates, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn and the petitioner is granted 30 days time to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority. If such an appeal is preferred by the petitioner, the appellate authority shall decide it expeditiously after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →