MUNISH BAJAJ AND SONS HUF vs. THE DY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7746/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01108416201820 July 2018Author: THE TAXING OFFICER,MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The reasoning was that the petitioner had already availed the alternative remedy of appeal by filing an appeal against the impugned order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and this appeal was pending. Therefore, without opining on the merits of the controversy, the Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue their pending appeal. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition challenging an order is generally not maintainable when an effective alternative remedy of appeal has been availed and is pending. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Munish Bajaj and Sons HUF, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging a notice dated 30.3.2017 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequent order of assessment dated 29.12.2017. The petitioner initially claimed no alternative remedy was available, but later admitted to having preferred an appeal against the impugned order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Court had previously adjourned the matter and granted liberty to file an appeal without prejudice to the writ petition. The appeal against the impugned order was pending.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal is available and has been availed by the petitioner. (Question of law) The petitioner argued that they had filed a writ petition challenging the notice and assessment order. The revenue's contention, implied by the court's decision, is that the availability and filing of an appeal render the writ petition infructuous. The judgment does not record specific arguments from either side regarding the merits of the assessment or the notice, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of alternative remedy.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7746 of 2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.7.2018 Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Rajesh Bindal, J. By filing the present writ petition challenge has been made to the notice dated 30.3.2017 (Annexure P-3) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequent order of assessment dated 29.12.2017 (Annexure P-8). In para no. 15 (g)(i) of the petition, a wrong statement has been made that there is no alternative remedy of appeal or revision available to the petitioner against the impugned order as in para no. 15(g)(j), it has been mentioned that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal against the impugned order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). On 28.3.2018, the Court passed the following order:- “At the petitioner's request, adjourned to 19.04.2018. In the meantime, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal against the order without prejudice to this writ petition.” Varinder Singh 2018.07.27 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh -2- Whether speaking/ reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Varinder Singh 2018.07.27 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →