VIKARAM STOVES AND FABRICATORS THR ITS PROPRIETOR V.S. KALE vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. THR THE INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers

WP/12177/2025HC BombayHCBM03031858202503 October 2025Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. G. AVACHAT,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABASAHEB D. SHINDE3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that writ petitions challenging orders refusing rectification of assessment orders should not be entertained when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available. The Court relied on the Apex Court's decision in The State of Maharashtra & Ors. V. Greatship (India) Limited, which stated that in taxation matters, High Courts should not entertain writ petitions if an equally efficacious remedy exists. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioners to avail the appropriate appellate remedy under Section 246A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The time spent pursuing the writ petitions would be excluded from the period of limitation for filing the appeal. No specific finding was made on the merits of the rectification requests themselves.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Vikram Stoves And Fabricators, filed multiple writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Income Tax Officer. These orders refused to grant rectification of assessment orders. The petitioners sought relief from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. The revenue, represented by the Union of India and various Income Tax Officers, objected to the maintainability of the writ petitions. The assessment years are not specified. The core of the dispute revolves around the refusal to rectify assessment orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain writ petitions challenging orders refusing rectification of assessment orders when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available under Section 246A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the writ petitions were the appropriate forum for challenging the orders. The revenue argued that the High Court should not entertain the writ petitions because the petitioners have an equally efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 246A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as held by the Apex Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra & Ors. V. Greatship (India) Limited.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

246A(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 959-wp-12177-2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 959 WRIT PETITION NO. 12177 OF 2025 Vikaram Stoves And Fabricators Thr Its Proprietor V.s. Kale VERSUS The Government Of India. Thr The Income Tax Officer And Others ... Mr. Jagdish G. Toshniwal & Mr. P. N. Kanani, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Nandkishor Yadav, Advocate for Respondent No.1/UOI ... AND 960 WRIT PETITION NO. 12178 OF 2025 Vikram Stoves And Fabricators Thr Its Proprietor V.s. Kale VERSUS The Government Of India. And Others … Mr. Jagdish G. Toshniwal & Mr. P. N. Kanani, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. N. T. Bhagat, Advocate for Respondent No.1/UOI ... AND 961 WRIT PETITION NO. 12179 OF 2025 Vikram Stoves And Fabricators Thr Its Proprietor V.s. Kale VERSUS The Govt. Of India And Others ... Mr. Jagdish G. Toshniwal & Mr. P. N. Kanani, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr.Rajendra Sanap, Advocate for Respondent No.1/UOI . … AND 962 WRIT PETITION NO. 12180 OF 2025 Vikram Stoves And Fabricators Thr Its Proprietor V.s. Kale VERSUS The Government Of India And Others ... Mr. Jagdish G. Toshniwal & Mr. P. N. Kanani, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr.Aummaheshwari Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No.1/UOI . … AND 963 WRIT PETITION NO. 12181 OF 2025 Narwade/ 2025:BHC-AUG:28094-DB

2 959-wp-12177-2025.odt Vikram Stoves And Fabricators Thr Its Proprietor V.s. Kale VERSUS The Government Of India And Others Mr. Jagdish G. Toshniwal & Mr. P. N. Kanani, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Nandkishor Yadav, Advocate for Respondent No.1/UOI … AND 964 WRIT PETITION NO. 12190 OF 2025 Vikaram Stoves And Fabricators Thr Its Proprietor V.s. Kale VERSUS The Government Of India And Others ... Mr. Jagdish G. Toshniwal & Mr. P. N. Kanani, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. N. T. Bhagat, Advocate for Respondent No.1/UOI. ... CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 03, 2025 P.C.:

Heard.

Challenge in these Writ Petitions is to the orders refusing to grant rectification of the Assessment Orders passed by Respondent No.4- Income Tax Officer by virtue of Section 246A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The said order is appealable as such the petitioners have equally efficacious remedy.

Learned Advocate for Respondents/UOI have strongly objected to the same.

The Apex Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra & Ors. V. Greatship (India) Limited, (2022) AIR SC 4408 has in so many words Narwade/

3 959-wp-12177-2025.odt observed that when equally efficacious remedy is available in taxation matter, the High Court shall not entertain the Writ Petitions.

In view of the above, we direct the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy, if so advised. The time spent in pursuing these petitions shall be excluded from computing the period of limitation required for preferring Appeal under Section Section 246A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

Writ Petitions disposed of accordingly.

[ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.] [R. G. AVACHAT, J.] Narwade/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →