SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA vs. U.O.I. THRU. SECY. MINISTRY OF FINANCE NEW DELHI AND 3 OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
WTAX/1329/2025HC AllahabadUPHC02090716202505 December 2025Bench: SANGEETA CHANDRA,AMITABH KUMAR RAI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court accepted the revenue's contention that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the appellate authority and had failed to disclose this material fact. The Court noted that the petitioner had challenged the demand and penalty orders directly through a writ petition, despite the existence of a statutory remedy. The reasoning was based on the principle that writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy and should not be invoked when an alternative efficacious remedy is available and has been pursued. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue their pending appeal. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.

What were the facts?

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging an ex-parte demand order dated March 19, 2025, issued by the Assessment Unit of the Income Tax Department under Sections 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a penalty order dated August 27, 2025, under Section 274 of the Act. The petitioner sought quashing of these orders and a direction to restrain coercive action. The matter was listed as a backlog matter. The petitioner's counsel sought an adjournment. The revenue objected, arguing that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the appellate authority, a fact not disclosed in the writ petition. The revenue presented a copy of Form-35, detailing the petitioner's appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has admittedly filed an appeal before the appellate authority, thereby having a statutory remedy available, and failed to disclose this fact in the writ petition? (Question of law and fact, turning on the principle of alternative remedy and disclosure obligations in writ proceedings). Contentions: Assessee: Prayed for an adjournment, stating the counsel had to travel from Allahabad and had not yet arrived. Revenue: Objected to the adjournment, arguing the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had already availed of a statutory remedy by filing an appeal, which was pending, and had failed to disclose this fact in the writ petition. The revenue placed reliance on the copy of Form-35 as evidence of the pending appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 1329 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kushagra Dixit, who appears on behalf of the Opposite party nos.2 to 4 and Shri Paavan Awasthi, who appears on behalf of the Opposite party no.1, Union of India. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following prayers:- "I. issue a writ or direction or pass an order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned ex-parte demand order dated 19.03.2025 issued by the Assessment Unit Of Income Tax Department i.e., the respondent no. 2, under section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Annexure Nos.17 To the writ petition, respectively), and also challenging the Impugned Penalty Order u/s 274 dated 27.08.2025 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 passed by the Respondent No. 4 (PRAFUL VERMA) (Income Tax Officer, Gonda). (Annexure No.18 to this writ petition). II. issue a writ or direction or pass an order in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notice and demand order; Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devanand Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Kushagra Dikshit Shri Rajendra Kumar Gupta .....Petitioner(s) U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance New Delhi And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)

III. issue any other suitable writ or direction or pass an order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and IV. Award costs of the writ petition to the petitioner." 3. This matter has been taken up in the Backlog left over matters. A notice has been pasted on the Notice Board of this Court Room saying that left over Backlog matters shall be taken up and order passed on merits in the first round itself but the counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment saying that the counsel who had to appear in the matter has to come from Allahabad and he has not come today. 4. Shri Neerav Chitravanshi has objected to an adjournment being granted. He says that when this matter was taken up in the first round, he has objected to the adjournment on the ground that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioner has admittedly filed an Appeal which is pending before the Appellate Authority and no disclosure of such fact in the writ petition has been made. The petitioner has challenged the Demand Order issued under Section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act and the Penalty Order under Section 274 dated 27.08.2025 straightway in writ petition where statutory remedy has already been availed off by the petitioner. 5. Shri Neerav Chitravanshi has placed before this Court a copy of Form-35 which has the details of the petitioner in which the Appeal was filed. 6. The copy of the Form-35 is kept on record. 7. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his Appeal. December 5, 2025 N.PAL WTAX No. 1329 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- NARESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →