J J AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD vs. Union of India AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WPO/2005/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCO002836202226 April 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it cannot scrutinize the sufficiency of the reasoning in the final assessment order in exercise of its constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court found no violation of the principle of natural justice, no inherent lack of jurisdiction in the authority passing the order, no issue with the constitutional validity of the law or provision involved, and no significant procedural irregularities committed by the assessing officer. The Court noted that the impugned order was a detailed order with reasoning, and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal before the CIT (Appeals). Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, J J Automotive Pvt. Ltd., challenged a final assessment order dated March 24, 2022, for assessment year 2014-15. This order was passed under Section 147 read with Sections 143(3)/144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment proceedings commenced with a notice under Section 148 dated March 31, 2021. The petitioner submitted replies to statutory notices. A draft assessment order was issued on March 11, 2022, to which the petitioner filed objections. Subsequently, the impugned final assessment order was passed. The petitioner argued that the final order was similar to the draft order and that there were procedural irregularities. The respondents were the Union of India and others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court, in its constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226, can scrutinize the sufficiency of the reasoning in the final assessment order, which is an appealable order before the CIT (Appeals)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the final assessment order was passed without proper consideration of their objections to the draft assessment order and was substantially similar to the draft, indicating procedural irregularities. They sought to challenge the assessment order through a writ petition. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, represented by the Union of India and others, implicitly argued that the assessment order was validly passed and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal. The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's specific arguments beyond the implication of their defense.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD-9 ORDER SHEET WPO/2005/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE J J AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD. -VS- UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 26th April, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arvind Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Farhan Ghaffar, Adv. Mrs. S. Chakraborty, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv. …for the UOI The Court: Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. In this matter the petitioner has challenged the impugned final assessment order dated 24th March, 2022 under Section 147 read with Sections 143(3)/144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to assessment year 2014-15 being Annexure A (page 18 to the writ petition), which is an appealable order before the CIT (Appeals). It appears from record that the impugned final assessment order was passed by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 31st March, 2021 and several notices as per statutory requirement were issued from time to time and replies to the same were given by the assessee/petitioner from time to time which are part of the record of this writ petition. Thereafter, a draft assessment order was passed on 11th

2 March, 2022 being Annexure P-15 to the writ petition. This draft assessment order was served upon the petitioner and it was given opportunity to file any objection to the same. It appears from record that petitioner had filed objection to the aforesaid draft assessment. Thereafter, this final assessment order has been passed. Considering the facts and circumstances as appears on perusal of record, I am of the view that this case does not fall in those categories of cases where any violation of principle of natural justice has occurred or the impugned proceedings have been initiated and the final assessment order has been passed by an authority who is having inherent lack of jurisdiction or constitutional validity of law or provision involved in this writ petition or any procedural irregularities has been committed by the respondent/assessing officer concerned in passing the final impugned assessment order, which is a detailed order with reasoning, though the petitioner submits that the same is almost similar to draft assessment. Needless to mention that this Court cannot scrutinise the sufficiency of the reasoning given in the assessment order in exercise of constitutional writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the discussion made above, this writ petition being WPO/2005/2022 is dismissed with no order as to costs. (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) RS

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →