Petition Dismissed: Exhaust Statutory Remedies Before Article 226 for Assessment Order Challenges.

The HC dismissed the writ petitions challenging the assessment order, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before approaching under Article 226. The petitioner must first appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The court rejected the argument on retrospective amendment application, allowing the petitioner to challenge the order before the appellate authority. No costs were imposed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioner aggrieved against revision of assessment; Availability of statutory remedy of filing an appeal; Entertaining writ petitions on the ground of retrospective application of amendment; Maintainability of writ petitions challenging assessment order; Need to exhaust alternative remedy of filing an appeal; Dismissal of writ petitions with liberty to challenge order before appellate authority.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses multiple issues arising from writ petitions challenging the revision of assessment. The court emphasizes the importance of exhausting all statutory remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in fiscal matters. It is established that the petitioner, when issued notice and offered a personal hearing before the assessment order, must first appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner before seeking relief from the High Court. The appellate authority is deemed a fact-finding body capable of considering objections raised by the petitioner and deciding on all aspects during the appeal process.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the writ petitions could be entertained based on the ground that the amendment mentioned in the assessment cannot be applied retrospectively. However, the court rejects this contention, stating that the same ground can be raised before the appellate authority for consideration. The court clarifies that the prayer in the writ petitions challenges the assessment order, not the amendment itself. Therefore, the writ petitions are deemed not maintainable solely because the petitioner must exhaust the alternative remedy of filing an appeal as provided by the statute.

The judgment cites previous decisions to support the principle that resorting to filing writ petitions before the High Court without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal is impermissible in fiscal matters. The court reiterates that the appellate authority is the appropriate forum to address objections and alleged errors in the assessment order. As such, the court dismisses all writ petitions but grants the petitioner the liberty to challenge the impugned order before the appellate authority within a specified timeframe. No costs are imposed, and connected miscellaneous petitions are closed as a result of the judgment.

---