PALLAVI RAMCHANDRA SHINDE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(1), PUNE AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/4654/2025HC BombayHCBM01018424202507 April 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SONAK,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition. Following its consistent practice in similar cases where an assessment order has been passed, the court relegated the petitioner to the alternate statutory remedy of appeal. The petitioner was granted liberty to institute an appeal against the assessment order dated February 17, 2025, and was permitted to raise all grounds, including those raised in the writ petition. The court also indicated that observations regarding interim relief made in similar orders would apply. All contentions of all parties were explicitly left open. The court noted that if an appeal is filed within two weeks, the Appellate Authority should consider the time spent by the petitioner in bonafide pursuing the writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pallavi Ramchandra Shinde, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an assessment order dated February 17, 2025, passed by the Income Tax Officer Ward 8(1), Pune. The writ petition was filed on March 20, 2025. The High Court noted that in similar matters where an assessment order had already been made, it had relegated parties to the alternate statutory remedy of appeal, even after issuing rules. The court heard learned counsel for both the petitioner and the respondents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an assessment order has already been passed and an alternate statutory remedy of appeal is available? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. However, the court's consistent practice in similar matters suggests the revenue likely argued for the availability of the alternate remedy.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

8-WP-4654-2025.DOCX Chaitanya IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4654 OF 2025 Pallavi Ramchandra Shinde … Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 8(1), Pune And Ors. … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Mrs Vidhi Punmiya a/w Mr Amiya R. Das, Ms Unnatii Thakkar i/b SPCM Legal, for Petitioner. Mr Akhileshwar Sharma, for Respondent. ______________________________________________________ CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED : 07 APRIL 2025 PC:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this matter, Assessment Order is already passed on 17 February 2025. 3. In similar matters, where Assessment Order has been made, we have relegated the parties to avail of the alternate statutory remedy of Appeal, even though Rule was issued in those Petitions. (Refer to our orders dated 07 April 2025 in Writ Petition (L) Nos. 6140 of 2025, 1288 of 2025, 3219 of 2025). Page 1 of 2 CHAITANYA ASHOK JADHAV Digitally signed by CHAITANYA ASHOK JADHAV Date: 2025.04.09 18:14:36 +0530

8-WP-4654-2025.DOCX 4. Accordingly, by adopting the reasoning in those orders, we decline to entertain this Petition, but grant the Petitioner liberty to institute an Appeal against the Assessment Order dated 17 February 2025, by raising all grounds including, the grounds raised in this Petition in such Appeal. 5. The observations regards interim relief made in the above referred orders will also apply to this matter. 6. Accordingly, this Petition is disposed of with liberty in the above terms. 7. All contentions of all parties are explicitly left open. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that an Appeal would be filed within two weeks from today. If said Appeal is indeed filed within two weeks from today, then the Appellate Authority would note that this Petition was instituted on 20 March 2025 and was pending in the Court till today. Therefore, some consideration should be shown to the time spend before this Court in bonafide pursing this matter. (Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J) Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →