2013 (8) TMI 458 - SC - Income Tax

Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Replace Statutory Remedies in Section 148 Reassessment Disputes

Commissioner of Income Tax & others Versus Chhabil Dass Agarwal

The SC held that where a statute provides a complete and effective remedy for assessment or reassessment disputes, the HC should not interfere under ... Validity of the High Court's interference under Article 226 of the Constitution despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy - reassessment - Writ petition filed against order passed u/s 148 - High Court quashed reassessment proceedings - Tax liability of the income accruing or arising to a non-Sikkimese individual residing in Sikkim - Held that:- Act provides complete machinery for the assessment/re-assessment of tax, imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, and the assessee could not be permitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when he had adequate remedy open to him by an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The remedy under the statute, however, must be effective and not a mere formality with no substantial relief - If an appeal is from “Caesar to Caesar’s wife” the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility. In the instant case, neither has the assessee-writ petitioner described the available alternate remedy under the Act as ineffectual and non-efficacious while invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court nor has the High Court ascribed cogent and satisfactory reasons to have exercised its jurisdiction in the facts of instant case. Writ Court ought not to have entertained the Writ Petition filed by the assessee, wherein he has only questioned the correctness or otherwise of the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, the re-assessment orders passed and the consequential demand notices issued thereon - Decided in favour of Revenue. ISSUES: Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging notices and reassessment orders issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when an alternative statutory remedy was available.Whether the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy under the Income Tax Act precludes interference by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction.Whether exceptional circumstances exist to warrant exercise of writ jurisdiction despite availability of statutory remedies.Whether the statutory appeal mechanism under the Income Tax Act provides an adequate and effective remedy for challenging reassessment notices and orders. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: It was held that the High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 since the assessee had an 'adequate efficacious alternative remedy' available under the Income Tax Act by way of appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).The Court reaffirmed that non-entertainment of writ petitions when an efficacious alternative remedy exists is a 'rule of self-imposed limitation' grounded in policy, convenience, and discretion rather than a strict rule of law.The High Court's interference with the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 and consequential demand notices was improper in the absence of exceptional grounds or demonstration that the statutory remedy was ineffective or unavailable.The appeal mechanism under the Income Tax Act was held to be a complete and effective remedy, and the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to bypass the statutory scheme.The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order quashing the reassessment notices, and granted liberty to file statutory appeals within a specified time, directing the appellate authority to consider them on merits without limitation objections. RATIONALE: The Court applied well-established principles from precedent that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be exercised where an effective alternative remedy is provided by statute (citing multiple authoritative decisions including State of U.P. vs. Mohammad Nooh, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, and Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India).The Court emphasized the 'rule of self-imposed restraint' that the High Court will not entertain writ petitions if the aggrieved party can obtain adequate relief through statutory channels, unless exceptional circumstances such as violation of natural justice or procedural irregularity exist.It was noted that the statutory appeal remedy must be 'effective and not a mere formality,' and no such ineffectiveness was demonstrated in the instant case.The Court reiterated that the existence of a statutory forum for redressal excludes other modes of seeking remedy, referencing Union of India vs. Guwahati Carbon Ltd. and other precedents.No exceptional grounds were found to justify bypassing the statutory appeal process, and the High Court had not assigned cogent reasons for exercising its writ jurisdiction.The Court clarified that the appellate authority should decide the statutory appeals on merits without being influenced by the High Court's earlier observations, preserving the statutory scheme's integrity.