In this Income Tax assessment petition, the High Court declined to interfere under Article 226 as the order was appealable under Section 246, holding that adequate statutory remedies were available instead.
Writ petition dismissed without costs; miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3311 I
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION NO: 1860 OF 2023
Between:
SOURCE HUB, 4-41-12401N111,2nd Floor, Taj Mahal Hotel Lane, Abids, Hyderabad - 500001, Telangana State. Rep. by its Partner Sri. Satish Kumar Mantri, S/o. Suryakanth Mantri, Aged about 42 Years.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the'l st respondent in not considering the letter dated 15-12-2022 seeking one week time to file the objections and passing the impugned order on 27 -12-2022 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, unfair, without authority of law andjurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the lncome Tax 1961 , violative of article 14, 19(1Xg), 21 and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently to set aside the same
lA NO: 1 OF 202a',
Petition urde Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the ci curnstances stated in the affidavil filr:d rr, sLtrr.a of the petition, the High Cot rl mey be pleased to grant stay of th3 ;Cllection of the disputed tax or Rs.g 3,3:2,6651 pending disposal of the, wrrt .ertition
Counsel for the F'el ti,rner: SRI R. RAMESH NAIK FOli SRI M V J K KUMAR
Counsel for the Fle: p,)ndent Nos.1 to 3: SRI J V PRASAD, l;(:: FC)R INCOME TAX DEPT
Counsel for the Fe: condent No.4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE FOll l;Rl c. PRAVEEN KUMAR DEPUTY S()LICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHTIYAN AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.186O of 2o23
ORDEB: (Pet the Hon'bie the Chtef Justice Ujjal Bhugarl)
Heard Mr. R.Ramesh Naik, learned counsel representing Mr. M.V.J.K.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing for respondents No. I to 3. We have also heard Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar., learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.4.
\
2
T
3
7 . On perusal of the assessment order, we lind that</sup> q pursuant to the notice issued under Sections 142(1 ) and 143(2) of the Act, petitioner had submitted various
.1
docume,rts scalled for.Thosewerecor: sidel'ed by responde nt..</sup> c1 where after the impugnedcrclerr:ame to be passed "
B. UF,or-, l-,:,.tringlearned counsel for th: partir:s 'md on due corrsitlt: artion,'eare of the view ttrat ;ince thc impugnr:d tr k rof assessmentis an appeirlablt 'rneunder Section 24'i,tt'f theAct, it would be open to t.he pet'itioner to fiie anr1l) ),:al,in rt'hich event, the ap lellettt' authority would cr:rtirir i'. look intothe grievance of the pe ir ioner'
g. As ncti' ei above, itis not a case of complt l'' dcnial of naturalju st:.:r rlr an order passedinperversl 11'' That being thepo i1ion, rve declineto invoke orr extr aordtnary jurisclictiolrr,derArticle226oftheConstitutic':toflndra to exanrine t-re legalityand validity ofeLrr orlerof assessmen - r tren thestatute providesfor an ade':1uate and efficacio'-ts ale -native remedy. In fact, the stilt't 1.' r provides for a hierar.ct v ofappeals, u'hich the petiticnerrr;'t1 zrvail in / the event i:- c rtrtinues toremain aggrievedSint::r ue have
5
not expressed any opinion on merit, all contentions are
kept open.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as tocosts.
SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSlSTANI+EGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I ceD SECTION OFFICER
\
To, 1. One CC to SRl. M V J K KUMAR Advocate IOPUC]
KKS ^ GJPh^-''
I
HIGH COUrr'-
DATED:21 10ti1,2023
ORDER
WP.No.1860 of 2023
:'<br><br>a1Ir $\ 1t8
l1
t
:")),*"
DISMISSING "HE WP
WITHOUT C.O iiTS
(
VI
,,\ i.1 1.-
)Y'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to examine the legality of an assessable order passed under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the assessment proceedings.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Source Hub
The Assistant Unit, Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Government of India
Ujjal Bhuyan
N. Tukaramji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
