Alternative remedy and clean hands barred writ relief where a bank guarantee plea was raised only before the court.

Writ relief against an attachment order under section 281B and refusal of clearance under section 230A was said to be unavailable where the assessee had an adequate alternative departmental remedy, including appeals against the outstanding demands and the possibility of seeking stay within the Department. The article states that a plea for acceptance of a bank guarantee, not shown to have been made before the Department and raised only before the writ court, could not justify invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction. It treats the later offer as inconsistent with bona fide conduct and clean hands, and characterises such a shift in stance as an abuse of process. On that basis, the writ petition was held not maintainable and rejected with costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging an attachment order under section 281B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and refusal of clearance under section 230A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was maintainable when an alternative departmental remedy was available and the plea for bank guarantee was raised for the first time before the writ court.

Analysis: The petitioner had not shown that any offer of bank guarantee had been made to the Department before approaching the writ court, and the attachment order itself recorded that no such arrangement had been made. The Court found no basis to dispute that finding. It further noted that appeals were available against the outstanding demands for the relevant assessment years and that stay could also be sought in the Department. In these circumstances, invocation of writ jurisdiction was unjustified. The Court treated the attempt to refuse a bank guarantee at the departmental stage and then offer it before the writ court as an abuse of the process of law, particularly where extraordinary writ relief is reserved for cases with no adequate alternative remedy and where the applicant has acted bona fide and with clean hands.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was rejected with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction will not be entertained where an adequate alternative remedy exists and the petitioner has not approached the court with bona fide conduct or clean hands, particularly when the relief sought is founded on a new factual plea not shown to have been raised before the Department.

---