BENQ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/24767/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01139298202306 November 2023Bench: MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA,MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that once an alternative and efficacious remedy is available under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it is not inclined to go into the merits of the case through a writ petition. Despite the petitioner's assertion that the remedy was not efficacious, the Court found the existence of an alternative remedy to be a settled legal principle. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail their alternative remedy before the Appellate Authority. The Court directed that if the appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of the order, the Appellate Authority would decide it on merits, considering the writ petition was filed before the expiry of the limitation period.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Benq India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an assessment order dated 27.09.2023, passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer changed his views during the video conferencing proceedings before passing the order. The writ petition was filed on 20.10.2023. The respondents are the National Faceless Assessment Centre and another authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an assessment order when an alternative and efficacious remedy is available under the Income Tax Act, 1961? The petitioner argued that the assessment order was bad in law as the Assessing Officer changed his views during the proceedings. The petitioner attempted to argue the matter on merits. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 119 2023:PHHC:141121-DB CWP-24767-2023 Date of Decision: 06.11.2023 Benq India Pvt. Ltd. .....Petitioner(s) Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre and another ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate, and Mr. Pankaj Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the assessment order dated 27.09.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. A perusal of the writ petition would go on to show that proceedings were conducted through video conferencing before the framing of the assessment. Apparently, the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy to challenge the said order. The writ petition has been filed on the ground that the Assessing Officer had changed his views as such during the hearing and then passed the said order. Efforts have been made to argue the matter on merits. 3. We are of the considered opinion that keeping in view the settled law that once there is alternative and efficacious remedy under the provisions of the Act, though the petitioner in the writ petition in Para No.7 has said otherwise in contradiction to the grounds taken that the remedy is not efficacious, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the case. Shivani Gupta 2023.11.08 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-24767-2023 -2- 2023:PHHC:141121-DB 4. Resultantly, we dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail his alternative remedy before the Appellate Authority. Keeping in view the fact that the writ petition was filed on 20.10.2023, prior to the expiry of period of limitation, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellate Authority would decide the appeal on merits in case the same is filed within a period of two weeks from today.

(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE 06.11.2023 (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN) shivani JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No Shivani Gupta 2023.11.08 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →