Disposed¶26

S a Trafin Private Limited v. Union of India

Bombay HC17 Mar 2025WP/491/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal; writ petition disposed of with liberty; delayed filing of writ petition against assessment order dated 01 February 2024; stay of recoveries refused; Co-ordinate Bench order dated 07 October 2024 in WP (L) No. 25413 of 2024 distinguished; liberty to apply to Assessing Officer for interim relief; S A Trafin Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India; AY 2020-2021 and AY 2021-2022; High Court of Judicature at Bombay; M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.

What did the court decide?

Both petitions disposed of with liberty: liberty to avail the alternate remedy of appeal and to apply to the Assessing Officer for appropriate interim relief under law; all contentions left open; no costs. ¶26

S a Trafin Private Limited vs Union of India — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment order dated 01 February 2024 should be entertained despite the availability of an alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal and the petitioner's approach almost a year after the impugned orders. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The Court declined to entertain Writ Petition No. 491 of 2025 but left open the alternate remedy of appeal to the Petitioner.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

No good ground was stated why the alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal could not be availed.

¶22

Key takeaways

The Co-ordinate Bench order dated 07 October 2024 in WP (L) No. 25413 of 2024 was not treated as warranting a similar stay of recoveries, because in that matter the Petitioner-Assessee had already instituted an Appeal and had not approached the Court after considerable delay as in the present case.ratio¶24
If the Petitioner so chooses, it may apply to the Assessing Officer for appropriate interim relief under law; all contentions in this regard were left open.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.; order signed by Jitendra Jain, J) disposed of two writ petitions by S A Trafin Pvt. Ltd. challenging assessment orders dated 01 February 2024 — Writ Petition No. 491 of 2025 (AY 2020-2021) and Writ Petition (L) No. 2490 of 2025 (AY 2021-2022) — filed almost a year after the impugned orders. The Court held that the Petitioner had an alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal with no good ground stated for not availing it, declined to entertain the petitions, and declined to stay recoveries by analogy to a Co-ordinate Bench order dated 07 October 2024 in WP (L) No. 25413 of 2024, noting that in that matter the assessee had already instituted an appeal and had not approached after considerable delay. Liberty was granted to pursue the appeal and to apply to the Assessing Officer for appropriate interim relief under law; all contentions were left open; no costs.

¶1

15-WP-491-25 & 16-WPL-2490-25-F.DOCX

¶2

Sayali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 491 OF 2025

¶5

SAYALI

¶6

DEEPAK

¶7

S A Trafin Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner

¶8

UPASANI

¶9

Digitally signed by SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI Date: 2025.03.18 14:39:53 +0530

¶10

Versus Union of India and Others …Respondents

¶11

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2490 OF 2025

¶12

S A Trafin Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner Versus Union of India and Others …Respondents

¶13

Mr Mahaveer Jain , for Petitioner. Mr Suresh Kumar , for Respondents.

¶14

CORAM: M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 17 MARCH 2025

¶15

PC:-

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO. 491 OF 2025

¶17

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶18

This Petition concerns the assessment year 2020-2021.

¶19

The Petitioner challenges the assessment order dated 01 February 2024 along with the consequential notices along for penalty etc., almost a year after the impugned orders were made.

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

15-WP-491-25 & 16-WPL-2490-25-F.DOCX

¶22

The Petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of an Appeal. There is no good ground stated why such an alternate remedy cannot be availed.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner refers to the order dated 07 October 2024 made by the Co-ordinate Bench in WP (L) No. 25413 of 2024. Based on the said order, he submits that we should stay the recoveries or further action in pursuance of the impugned order dated 01 February 2024 during the pendency of the Appeal before the Appellate Authority.

¶24

In the above matter, the Petitioner-Assessee already instituted an Appeal, and the Petitioner had also not approached this Court after considerable delay as in the present case.

¶25

Accordingly, we decline to entertain this Petition but leave it open to the Petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy of appeal. If the Petitioner so chooses, the Petitioner can also apply to the Assessing Officer for appropriate interim relief under law. All contentions in this regard are left open.

¶26

This Petition is disposed of with liberty in the above terms. No costs.

¶27

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2490 OF 2025

¶28

This Petition concerns the assessment year 2021-2022.

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

15-WP-491-25 & 16-WPL-2490-25-F.DOCX

¶31

We have disposed of the connected Writ Petition No. 491 of 2025 for the assessment year 2020-2021. Following the same reasoning, we dispose of this Petition with similar liberties. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶32

(Jitendra Jain, J)

¶33

Page 3 of 3

S a Trafin Private Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S a Trafin Private Limited v. 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Viresh Gangaram Joshi vs Securities and Exchange Board of India

Nutandevi Virdhavalsinh Dhamdhere vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors.

Dattatray Rangnath Bhujbal vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

Parmatma Steel Centre Proprietorship Jitendra M Jain vs the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader

Aditya Birla Sun Life Amc Limited vs National Faceless Assessment Center Delhi

Jsw Energy Limited vs Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 8(3) Mumbai and Ors.