High Court emphasizes statutory remedies in tax matters, dismissing writ petition challenging tribunal order. Failure to pursue prescribed remedy noted.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing the importance of availing statutory remedies under the Income-tax Act. The court highlighted that the petitioner failed to utilize the prescribed remedy of a reference application under section 256(1) of the Act, opting for multiple miscellaneous applications instead. Emphasizing the limitations on exercising discretionary jurisdiction when alternative remedies are available, the court held that the petitioner's failure to pursue the appropriate statutory remedy led to the dismissal of the writ petition.

---

---

Issues:
1. Maintainability of a writ petition against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Failure to avail of alternative remedy under section 256 of the Income-tax Act.
3. Interpretation of the decision in CIT v. Bansi Dhar and Sons [1986] 157 ITR 665 (SC).

Analysis:
1. The High Court considered the maintainability of a writ petition against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. While acknowledging that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, the court emphasized that it ordinarily does not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under article 226 if an alternative remedy is available. The petitioner had filed multiple miscellaneous applications instead of availing the statutory remedy of a reference application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. The court highlighted that the Income-tax Act prescribes various channels for appeals and references, and the petitioner failed to utilize the appropriate remedy, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

2. The court delved into the petitioner's failure to avail of the alternative remedy under section 256 of the Income-tax Act. Despite having the opportunity to file a reference application against the original order of the Tribunal and subsequent orders, the petitioner chose to file multiple miscellaneous applications. The court noted that the petitioner did not file a reference application within the prescribed time limits, leading to the rejection of subsequent applications. Citing precedents, the court emphasized that the statutory remedy of filing a reference application should have been pursued instead of resorting to a writ petition.

3. Regarding the interpretation of the decision in CIT v. Bansi Dhar and Sons [1986] 157 ITR 665 (SC), the court clarified that the said decision does not grant the High Court unrestricted power to interfere in writ jurisdiction against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The court highlighted that the decision allows for writ petitions in specific circumstances, such as pending reference proceedings where a stay is required. In the present case, the petitioner did not make any attempt to file a reference application against the Tribunal's orders, leading to the court's decision not to exercise its writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of availing statutory remedies provided under the Income-tax Act and highlighting the limitations of the court's discretionary jurisdiction in cases where alternative remedies exist.

---