MOLBIO DIAGNOSTICS LIMITED THR. ITS DIRECTOR AND AUTH. REP. SRIRAM NATARAJAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTREAL CIRCLE AND 3 ORS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The Court reasoned that the petitioner has a clear and efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows for an appeal against an assessment order. The Court noted that the petitioner's grievance pertains to the assessment proceedings themselves and the alleged lack of opportunity to be heard during those proceedings, which can be effectively addressed in the appellate stage. The Court cited various precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, emphasizing the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when statutory remedies are available. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy, without delving into the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding jurisdiction or natural justice. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Molbio Diagnostics Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) dated 29.03.2025, which directed the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) to proceed with the assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2023-24. The petitioner had sought a stay on these proceedings before the ACIT, which was rejected. The petitioner contended that the assessment proceedings were initiated without proper jurisdiction and that the impugned order was passed without affording them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel, argued that the petition was premature and that the petitioner had alternative remedies available.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the availability of alternative remedies under the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically Section 246A, concerning the challenge to the assessment order. (Question of law) 2. Whether the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, directing the Assistant Commissioner to proceed with the assessment, is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, as it allegedly did not provide the petitioner with a proper opportunity to be heard. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the writ petition is maintainable because the impugned order is without jurisdiction and arbitrary. They relied on the principle that writ jurisdiction can be invoked when there is a patent lack of jurisdiction or a violation of natural justice. They also contended that the assessment proceedings themselves were initiated erroneously. Revenue's Contentions: The respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the assessment order under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. They also submitted that the petitioner had not exhausted the available statutory remedies.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT: (Per Nivedita P. Mehta, J.) 1. 2. 3. 4. 19-WP-142-2025 3 18
19-WP-142-2025 4 18
19-WP-142-2025 5 18
19-WP-142-2025 6 18
19-WP-142-2025 7 18
19-WP-142-2025 8 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1 (2024) 168 taxmann.com 406 (Delhi) 2 (2023) 155 taxmann.com 276 (Madhya Pradesh) 3 (2023) 152 taxmann.com 231 (Karnataka) 4 AIR 2003 SC 2120 5 (2023) 146 taxmann.com 224 (SC) 6 (2024) 159 taxmann.com 500 ( Jharkhand) 7 (2025) 174 taxmann.com 969 (Delhi) 8 (2023) 146 taxmann.com 66 (Bombay) 9 (2023) 150 taxmann.com 94 (Calcutta) 10 (2023) 149 taxmann.com 230 (Chhattisgarh) 11 (2022) 145 taxmann.com 510 (Delhi) 12 (2024) 162 taxmann.com 467 (Bombay) 13 (2004) 137 taxman 479 (Bom)
19-WP-142-2025 9 18
14
14 (2025) 302 Taxmann 367 (SC)
19-WP-142-2025 10 18
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
15 (2022) 141 Taxmann.com (Punjab & Haryana) 16 2007 (161) Taxman 316 (SC) 17 2022 (289) Taxman 239 SC 18 2022 (143) Taxman.com 37 (Punjab & Har.) 19 2024 Taxman 419 (Allahabad) 20 2024 (296) Taxman 281 (Allahabad) 21 10(3) Delhi High Court dated 07.04.2022 in WP(C)No.5787/2022 & CM Appl.17297/2022 22 Civil Appeal No.5390/2007 delivered by SC
19-WP-142-2025 11 18
19-WP-142-2025 12 18
19-WP-142-2025 13 18
19-WP-142-2025 14 18
19-WP-142-2025 15 18
19-WP-142-2025 16 18
19-WP-142-2025 17 18
19-WP-142-2025 18 18
NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
Signed by: NITI KISHOR HALDANKAR Designation: Private Secretary Date: 12/08/2025 17:31:02
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
