KHEMCHAND UTTAMCHAND BHOJWANI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the Petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal, which was communicated to them. The Court found the Petitioner's assertion of having no alternate or efficacious remedy to be false. The reasons provided by the Petitioner, such as the delay in appellate proceedings and the pre-deposit requirement for interim relief, were not considered justifiable grounds to bypass the statutory remedy. The Court emphasized that extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked to avoid pre-deposit requirements or to circumvent statutory appeal mechanisms. Regarding the breach of natural justice, the Court noted that the allegations pertained to inadequate notice or opportunity, which would require factual investigation and did not present extraordinary circumstances to deviate from the rule of exhausting alternate remedies. The Court, relying on its previous decision in Oberoi Constructions Limited vs. Union of India, declined to entertain the petition, relegating the Petitioner to their alternate statutory remedy. All contentions of both parties were left open to be decided by the Appellate Authority.
What were the facts?
The Petitioner, Khemchand Uttamchand Bhojwani, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an Assessment Order dated 29.05.2024 and the Show Cause Notices that preceded it. The Petitioner claimed there was no alternate or efficacious remedy and relied on the Supreme Court case of Godrej Sara Lee Limited vs. Excise and Taxation Officer. The Revenue pointed out that the Petitioner was informed of the statutory remedy of appeal in the demand notice. The Petitioner argued that appellate authorities take a long time and often require a 20% deposit for interim relief, a fact also suppressed in the petition. The Petitioner also alleged breach of natural justice.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy available, thereby precluding the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Petitioner's allegations of breach of natural justice warrant bypassing the statutory appellate remedy? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: - There is no alternate or efficacious remedy available. - Reliance on Godrej Sara Lee Limited vs. Excise and Taxation Officer. - Appellate authorities take a long time to decide appeals. - Authorities require a 20% deposit for interim relief pending appeal. - Allegations of breach of natural justice. Revenue's Contentions: - The Petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal, as indicated in the demand notice. - The Petitioner's claims regarding the delay in appeals and pre-deposit requirements are not justifiable reasons to bypass the statutory remedy. - The Petitioner suppressed the demand notice in the petition. - The allegations of breach of natural justice concern inadequate notice or opportunity, requiring factual investigation.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WP 15376-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15376 OF 2024 Khemchand Uttamchand Bhojwani .Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central .Respondents Circle 2(2), Pune & ors. Mr. Sanket Suhas Bora a/w. Ms. Vidhi Punmiya, Mr. Amiya R. Das & Ms. Unnatii Thakkar i/b. SPCM Legal, Advocates, for the Petitioner Mr. Suresh Kumar i/b. Ms. Smita Thakur, Advocate, for the Respondents CORAM : M. S. SONAK & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 21.04.2025 P. C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this case is to the Assessment Order dated 29.05.2024. The Petitioner has also challenged the Show Cause Notices based upon which the Assessment Order was ultimately issued. 3. There are omnibus statements in the Petition stating that the Petitioner has no alternate or efficacious remedy except Anand 1 of 4
WP 15376-2024.doc approaching this Court. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej Sara Lee Limited vs. Excise and Taxation officer 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95 without giving any indication about either similarity of facts or the applicability of this precedent. 4. The statement that the Petitioner has no alternate and efficacious remedy is false because the Petitioner is provided with a remedy of an Appeal and this was informed to the Petitioner in the notice of demand by which the Assessment Order was sought to be enforced. Therefore, based upon such an incorrect statement if not a false statement, the rule of exortion of alternate remedies cannot be bypassed. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that Appellate Authorities take a long time to deal with the Appeals. He pointed out that the Appellate Authorities or the Authorities under the Act, by relying upon CBDT circulars normally require deposit of 20% of the tax demand as a pre-condition for interim relief pending the Appeal. This demand notice has also been suppressed by the Petitioner. 6. The above reasons are not justifiable reasons to bypass the statutory alternate remedy. Extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to avoid any pre-deposit requirements or requirements for deposit of some amounts as a pre-condition for Anand 2 of 4
WP 15376-2024.doc interim relief. Besides, this Court, cannot be flooded with Petitions of this nature on the spacious plea that such Petitions are decided faster than the statutory Appeals provided under the law. 7. The Petitioner has alleged breach of natural justice. Since we propose to relegate the Petitioner to avail the alternate remedy, we do not wish to make any observations on the merits or de-merits of such a claim. However, record does not show that this was a case of no notice or no opportunity but instead, the allegations in the Petition concern no adequate notice or no sufficient opportunity. This would require investigation into factual aspects. No extra ordinary circumstances have been shown to deviate from the normal rule requiring exortion of alternate efficacious remedies. 8. In Oberoi Constructions Limited vs. Union of India, W. P. No. 33260 of 2023 decided on 11.11.2024, we have considered several decisions on the issue of exortion of alternate remedies. By applying the reasoning in the said decision and the decisions referred to therein, we decline to entertain this Petition but leave it open to the Petitioner to avail of alternate statutory remedy provided under the law. 9. All contentions of all parties are left open to be decided by the Appellate Authority should the Petitioner avail of such alternate remedy. Anand 3 of 4
WP 15376-2024.doc 10. This Petition is dismissed with liberty in the above terms but without any costs.
(JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (M. S. SONAK, J.) Anand 4 of 4
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
