Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax1

PDF · subscribers
WP/625/2017HC Madhya Pradesh13 January 2017Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE2 pages
For Petitioner: Bhashkar Ganguly
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since a show cause notice was issued and an assessment order was passed after considering the petitioner's objections, there was no reason to interfere in the writ proceedings under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. The Court found that a statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner before the appellate authority and subsequently before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue the available statutory remedies. The writ petition was disposed of on this basis.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a notice issued on March 30, 2016, under Section 148(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a subsequent assessment order passed under Section 143(3)/147 on December 28, 2016. The petitioner argued that the issuance of the show cause notice and the subsequent assessment were not in accordance with the law. The Revenue's position is not explicitly recorded in terms of arguments presented.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issuance of the show cause notice and the subsequent assessment order are in accordance with law, as argued by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the entire process, from the issuance of the show cause notice to the final assessment order, was not in compliance with legal provisions. The petitioner argued that the Court should interfere under its extraordinary jurisdiction. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Revenue regarding the legality of the notice or assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148(1),Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

WP-625-2017 (JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT Vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX1) 13-01-2017 Shri Bhaskar Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/Bank under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the notice issued on 30th of March, 2016 under Section 148(1) and subsequently an order of assessment passed under Section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act vide Annexure-P2 on 28th of December, 2016. Even though, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the issuance of the show cause notice and the subsequent assessment are not in accordance with law, we are of the considered view that once the show cause notice has been issued and after consideration of the objection of the petitioner, an assessment order has also been passed, we find no reason to interfere into the matter in these proceedings under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. Petitioner has to take recourse to the statutory remedy available by filing an appeal before the appellate authority and, thereafter, the second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate tribunal. As the statutory remedy is available to the petitioner, no case for indulgence by this Court exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is called for. Granting liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy available under the Income Tax Act, this writ petition stands disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE nd

More judgments on Section 148(1)

All 40 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →