Writ Petition Dismissed: Court Upholds Re-assessment Order, Cites Available Statutory Appeal and Lack of Prejudice.

The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the re-assessment order, emphasizing the availability of a statutory appeal as an alternative remedy. The court found that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings and that any issues regarding the manual issuance of the notice without a DIN did not cause prejudice. The court held that the lack of a DIN was insufficient to warrant entertaining the writ petition, directing that the petition be consigned to records.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge against re-assessment order, maintainability of writ petition due to availability of statutory appeal, issuance of notice without DIN.

Challenge against re-assessment order: The petition was filed against the re-assessment order passed against the petitioner. The petitioner argued that proper opportunity was not given and the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued manually instead of through the document identification number (DIN), which was claimed to be in violation of a circular issued by the department. On the other hand, the revenue department's counsel contended that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings and the reassessment was concluded after considering the petitioner's reply.

Maintainability of writ petition due to statutory appeal: The court noted a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner had the remedy of filing a statutory appeal where all questions of fact and law could be adjudicated. Despite the petitioner's argument of lack of proper opportunity and manual issuance of notice, the court found that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings and all questions of fact and law could be examined by the appellate authority.

Issuance of notice without DIN: The main argument raised was that the re-assessment order was without jurisdiction as notices were not issued on DIN. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that no prejudice was shown to have been caused to the petitioner due to the manual notices. The petitioner had acknowledged receipt of the notice and submitted objections, which were duly considered. The court held that non-issuance of notice on DIN was not a sufficient ground to entertain the writ petition, especially considering the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Conclusion: In light of the above observations, the court declined to entertain the writ petition and directed that the petition be consigned to records.

---