Dismissal of Writ Petition Challenging Income Tax Order & Notice

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax's order and notice of demand treating the petitioner as an assessee in default for a significant sum for the Financial Year 2011-12. The court held that the petitioner should pursue statutory remedies available under section 246A and section 253, emphasizing that the previous judgment relied upon was not applicable to the present case involving different provisions. The court also rejected challenges to duties levied under various sections, citing the need for the petitioner to exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the High Court directly.

---

---

Issues:
1. Quashing of order dated 31 March 2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)
2. Treatment of assessee as an assessee in default for a demand of Rs.38,78,72,323/- for the Financial Year 2011-12
3. Availability of statutory alternative remedies under section 246A and section 253
4. Interpretation of judgment in Jagran Prakashan Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) (2012) 345 ITR 288 (All)
5. Challenge to duties levied under sections 194A, 194C, 194I, 194J, 195, and 206
6. Allegation of violation of principles of natural justice
7. Application of the ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2014) 1 SCC 603

Analysis:
1. The petition sought the quashing of an order by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) and a consequential notice of demand for being treated as an assessee in default for a substantial amount for the Financial Year 2011-12.
2. The Revenue argued that the petitioner had statutory alternative remedies available through appeals under section 246A and section 253, which the petitioner contested by relying on a previous Division Bench judgment.
3. The Division Bench judgment cited by the petitioner was specific to section 194H, whereas the present case involved various other provisions, leading the court to conclude that the petitioner should pursue the available statutory remedies.
4. The detailed computation of the demand under various heads was presented, showing the failure to deduct TDS under different sections, which were not covered by the previous judgment relied upon by the petitioner.
5. The court rejected the petition's challenge to duties levied under sections 194A, 194C, 194I, 194J, 195, and 206, emphasizing that the petitioner had statutory alternative remedies and that the factual aspects differed from the previous judgment.
6. Despite the petitioner's claim of a violation of natural justice principles, the court found that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to respond to the notice, thus not constituting a breach of natural justice.
7. Citing the Supreme Court ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, the court held that the Income Tax Act provided a complete machinery for redressal, and the petitioner should not bypass the statutory remedies available by directly approaching the High Court under Article 226. The court declined to entertain the writ petition based on this principle.

---