High Court emphasizes exhaustion of alternative remedies before constitutional intervention. Petition disposed.

The High Court declined to interfere in a matter where a substantive remedy was pending before the CIT(Appeals). The Court emphasized the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before seeking intervention under constitutional provisions. As the petitioner could seek interim relief and present contentions in the pending appeal, the Court found interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India unjustified. The Court disposed of the petition, recognizing the petitioner's right to pursue the alternate remedy and addressing concerns regarding interim protection.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the High Court should interfere in a matter where a substantive remedy is pending before the CIT(Appeals).
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim protection against the subject assessment.

Analysis:

1. The judgment begins by acknowledging that a substantive remedy challenging the subject assessment is pending before the CIT(Appeals). The petitioner's counsel argues that the order by the Principal Commissioner lacks reasons, warranting the Court's intervention. In response, the respondent's counsel suggests that the petitioner can seek interim relief and present their contentions in the pending appeal. The Court observes that since an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not justified. The Court, while recognizing the petitioner's right to pursue the alternate remedy, decides to dispose of the petition.

2. Following the above determination, the petitioner's counsel requests interim protection, citing an impending deposit obligation related to the subject assessment. The respondent's counsel, acknowledging the unique circumstances of the case, assures that no coercive action will be taken until a specified date. Consequently, the Court disposes of the petition, taking note of the parties' submissions and the assurance regarding the enforcement of the assessment.

In conclusion, the High Court decision emphasizes the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before seeking intervention under constitutional provisions, ensuring that parties utilize available avenues for relief. The judgment reflects a balanced approach by considering the pending substantive remedy and addressing the petitioner's concerns regarding interim protection, ultimately providing clarity on the course of action to be followed in the given legal context.

---