SAMARPAN SEVA SAMITI SAMARTH DESH SAMARDH DESH vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

PDF · subscribers
WPT/142/2021HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01020832202105 December 2021Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY AGRAWAL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable at a premature stage due to the availability of alternative efficacious remedies. The court noted that the petitioner has remedies under Sections 246-A, 254, and 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was that these statutory remedies provide a structured mechanism for addressing grievances related to assessment orders, including those involving alleged procedural violations. The court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the violation of Section 144-B(7)(vii). Instead, it granted the petitioner three weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the appropriate authorities. These authorities were directed to consider and decide the appeal on its merits expeditiously and in accordance with the law. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the court's decision was based on the maintainability of the writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Samarpan Seva Samiti Samarth Desh, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur. The petition challenged an assessment order dated 12.04.2021, passed by Respondent No.3 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed in gross violation of clause (vii) of sub-section (7) of Section 144-B of the Act. The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as alternative efficacious remedies were available to the petitioner under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, given the availability of alternative efficacious remedies under the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed in gross violation of Section 144-B(7)(vii) of the Act, implying a fundamental procedural flaw that warranted direct intervention by the High Court. The revenue contended that the impugned order of assessment is appealable under Section 246-A of the Act, 1961 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Further, against the order of the Commissioner, the petitioner can approach the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act, 1981, and thereafter, has a further remedy of filing an appeal before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Act, 1961. Therefore, the revenue argued that 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 144-B(7)(vii),Section 246-A,Section 254,Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Sheet WPT No. 142 of 2021 Samarpan Seva Samiti Samarth Desh Samardh Desh Versus Government Of India 06.12.2021 Shri Yogesh Chandra Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Kumrani appears on behalf of Shri Amit Chaudhari, counsel for the respondents. Arguments heard. Order dictated in open Court. Signed and dated separately. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Anjani

2 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPT No. 142 of 2021 Samarpan Seva Samiti Samarth Desh Samardh Desh Through Its Secretary Dr. Ubeida Anjum, Age About 35 Years, D/o Shri M.A. Ali, Office At 140/8, Rajashwagram, Chhatribagh, Indore, (M.P.) Local Address Office At K-6, Anupam Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder, Shri Ameya Agasti, Chartered Accountant, Aged About 35 Years, S/o Shri S.L. Agasti, R/o First Floor, Shop No.- 19 And 21, Bhakt Mata Karma Parishar, RDA Building, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Government Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Income Tax Department, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, Delhi 2. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Delhi 3. Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer, National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi, Delhi

---- Respondents ______________________________________________________________ For Petitioner: Shri Yogesh Chandra Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents: Shri Ajay Kumrani appears on behalf of Shri Amit Chaudhari, Advocate. Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J Order On Board 06/12/2021 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the assessment order dated 12.04.2021 (Annexure P/.3) passed by Respondent No.3 under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (henceforth 'Act, 1961'). 2. Shri Yogesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned assessment order has been passed in gross violation of clause (vii) of sub-section (7) of Section 144-B of the Act, 1961, therefore, it deserves to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, Shri Ajay Kumrani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the impugned order of assessment dated

3 12.04.2021 (Annexure P/3) is appealable under Section 246-A of the Act, 1961 before the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals) and even against the order of Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals), the petitioner can avail before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act, 1981 and then he has further remedy of filing appeal before this Court under Section 260-A of 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 entire papers annexed with this petition carefully. 5. Since the alternative efficacious remedy under Sections 246-A, 254 & 260A of the Act, 1961 is available to the petitioner, I am, therefore, not inclined to entertain this writ petition at such a prematured stage. However, the petitioner is granted 3 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 disposed of. Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal)

JUDGE Anjani

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →