Dismissed¶22

Noor Enterprises v. the Union of India

Bombay HC24 Mar 2025WP/4575/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P. No. 4575 of 2024; M/s. Noor Enterprises v. Union of India & Ors.; Bombay High Court OOCJ; writ petition dismissed; alternative statutory remedy doctrine; appeal under Section 253 Income Tax Act, 1961; challenge to order dated 4 September 2024 under Section 250 IT Act; bald/no-pleadings efficacious-remedy averment rejected; liberty to appeal; no costs; decided 24 March 2025; Bench: M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to appeal the impugned order dated 4 September 2024 in accordance with law; petition dismissed with no costs. ¶22

Noor Enterprises vs the Union of India — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

2025:BHC-OS:4700-DB

¶2

Sayyed 9-WP.4575.2024.docx

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4575 OF 2024

¶6

M/s. Noor Enterprises ...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Moeen Choudhary a/w Mr. S. K. Ali i/b. A. A. Siddiquie & Associates for Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Arjun Gupta for Respondent-Revenue.

¶11

CORAM : M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED : 24 March 2025

¶12

PC.:-

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4 September 2024 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Exhibit-A).

¶15

In paragraph 16 of the petition, the Petitioner had made the following averment :-

¶16

“The Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has no other efficacious remedy available save and except to file this petition by way of seeking indulgence of the Hon’ble court complaining about the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India 1950 as well as defeating of the rule of law.”

¶17

The above averment is patently incorrect. The Petitioner has remedy of an appeal under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There is no pleadings in the petition why this statutory and appellate remedy is not efficacious or why the Petitioner should be exempted from exhausting this statutory appellate remedy. Instead, the Petitioner

Page 1 of 2

Sayyed

9-WP.4575.2024.docx

has chosen to make a bald statement in paragraph 16 that it has no other efficacious remedy save and except instituting this petition.

¶22

Accordingly, we decline to entertain this petition and dismissed the same. However, it will be open to the Petitioner to appeal the impugned order dated 4 September 2024 in accordance with law. 6. The petition is dismissed with liberty in the above terms. No costs.

¶23

(Jitendra Jain, J.) (M. S. Sonak, J.)

¶24

Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/03/2025 18:41:15

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Noor Enterprises v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noor Enterprises v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Allen Dsouza vs Dy. Collector (Land Acquisition) No. 7

United India Insurance Company Limited vs the Official Liquidator of C Mahendra Exports Ltd.

Bhaskar Vasudev Vasu Bhoir vs the Competant Authority and Sub Divisional Officer Vasai

Nimesh Sharad Shah vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 20 1

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 6 Mumbai vs Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Ay 2013 14

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 6 Mumbai vs Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Ay 2016 17