MR. M.R. NITHIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WA/684/2018HC KarnatakaKAHC01013043201814 October 2019Bench: K.S.MUDAGAL,ASHOK S.KINAGI3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no merit in the appeal, stating that the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act is not in dispute and the petitioner can avail it. The grounds raised by the petitioner can be addressed in the appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order, but the learned Single Judge dismissed it due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner appealed this dismissal.

What were the issues?

Whether a writ petition is maintainable when an alternative and efficacious remedy is available under the Income Tax Act. Whether the dismissal of a writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy is justified without assigning reasons.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 246

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ON THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

WRIT APPEAL NO.684 OF 2018 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

MR. M.R. NITHIN L/R LATE MR. M.S. RAMANANDA SON OF LATE MR. M.S. RAMANANDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT: M/S. BASAVESHWARA RICE MILL G.R. HALLY, CHITRADURGA-577 502. ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI: HARISH V.S., ADVOCATE)

AND: INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, TAMATKAL ROAD MEDEHALLI CHITRADURGA-577 502. …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI: DILIP, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

2 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 28.08.2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4526 OF 2017 (I-IT) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.

*****

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.4526 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge, in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the petitioner therein has filed this appeal.

2.

The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge has not assigned any reasons while disposing off the petition and therefore, even though there is an alternative and efficacious remedy, the same cannot be a bar to entertain the writ petition.

3.

On hearing learned Counsels, we do not find any merit to entertain this appeal. The availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy is not in dispute. The contention urged by the appellant can very well constitute grounds for appeal. We find no grounds as to why the petitioner cannot avail the alternative and efficacious remedy available to him.

4.

Under these circumstances, we do not find any grounds to entertain the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

As requested, eight weeks time is granted to the appellant from today to enable him to file an appeal.

Sd/-

Sd/- JUDGE

JUDGE

bgn/-

More judgments on Section 246

All 130 judgments and leading authorities on Section 246 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →