RATNAKAR RAO vs. UNION OF INDIA

WPT/51/2022HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01007629202215 July 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court considered the submissions of both parties. The revenue pointed out the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows for an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition to pursue this appellate remedy and requested a direction for speedy disposal. The Court acknowledged these submissions and, taking them into consideration, dismissed the petition as withdrawn. The petitioner was granted 30 days to file an appeal before the appellate authority, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously after providing an opportunity of hearing to both parties. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ratnakar Rao, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The respondents were various income tax authorities, including the Union of India through the Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur, and other Joint and Assistant Commissioners. The writ petition challenged an order or action, though the specific order and assessment year(s) are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner approached the High Court directly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner against the order or action being challenged? (Question of law, turning on Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). The revenue contended that an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is available to the petitioner under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, through their counsel, sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the appellate authority and requested a direction for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CGHC010076292022

2026:CGHC:30264

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 51 of 2022 • Ratnakar Rao S/o Shri Chalsani Venkateshwar Rao Aged About 63 Years Mig 196, Padmanabhpur , Police Station Durg Pin 491001 Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner versus 1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur 1 Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 1, Aaykar Bhawan, New Civic Centre, Bhilai , District Durg Chhattisgarh Pin 490006 4. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) , Aaykar Bhawan, New Civic Centre, Bhilai , District Durg Chhattisgarh Pin 490006 5. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 1, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner

: Mr. Rishabh Agrawal, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. S. Rajeshwara Rao, Advocate For Union of India/Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Banjare, Central Government No. 1 : Counsel For Respondents No. 2 to 5 : Mr. Ajay Kumarani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.07

.2026

Learned counsel appearing for respondents would submit that there is efficacious alternative remedy available in favour of the petitioner. 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. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.07.16 16:40:48 +0530

2 2. At this stage, Mr. Agrawal 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 →