ROMESH KUMAR DOGRA vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ECT.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable before it. The reasoning was based on the fact that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Judicature of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, as the petitioner is assessed in Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, the High Court relegated the petitioner to the remedy of appeal. No decision was made on the merits of the Tribunal's order or the ground of it being time-barred. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition by directing the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Romesh Kumar Dogra, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an order dated 3.7.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'SMC', Chandigarh. The primary ground for challenging the Tribunal's order was that it was time-barred. The petitioner is assessed in Himachal Pradesh. The High Court noted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Judicature of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana when the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the High Court of Judicature of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, given that the petitioner is assessed in Himachal Pradesh? Assessee's contention: The petitioner filed the writ petition on the ground that the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was time-barred. (The judgment does not explicitly state the assessee's argument regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, but implies it by filing it.) Revenue's contention: The revenue did not file any reply or appear before the High Court. The judgment does not record any arguments from the revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. C.W.P. No.7681 of 2007 Date of Decision: 21.5.2007 Romesh Kumar Dogra
…Petitioner. Versus Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Others.
…Respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.Jang Bahadur Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. JUDGMENT M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 3.7.2006 (Annexure P3) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'SMC', Chandigarh, on the ground that it was time barred. The petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the High Court of Judicature of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla as the petitioner is assessed in Himachal Pradesh. The writ petition would not be maintainable in this Court. Therefore, we relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal. Petition stands disposed of in above terms. (M.M.KUMAR)
Judge May 21, 2007 (RAJESH BINDAL) dkb
Judge
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
