Court dismisses writ petition, directs appeal remedy within 4 weeks; maintains status quo on deposits for 2 weeks.

The court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to avail the appeal remedy within four weeks. The court noted the petitioner's compliance with an earlier order to deposit Rs. 495 Crores and instructed the Appellate Authority to consider this amount during the appeal process. The court maintained the status quo on fixed deposits for two weeks. The petition was dismissed without costs, and the related miscellaneous petition was closed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Section 115 O of the Income Tax Act mandates issuance of show-cause notice and enquiry before passing a final order.
2. Whether there is any breach of principles of natural justice.
3. Whether the Assessing Officer is prohibited from issuing the impugned order in light of the bar prescribed in Section 245 RR of the Income Tax Act.
4. Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Show-Cause Notice Requirement under Section 115 O
The court examined whether Section 115 O of the Income Tax Act requires the issuance of a show-cause notice and an enquiry before passing a final order. The relevant provisions, including Sections 115-O, 115-P, and 115-Q, were scrutinized. The court observed that these sections are self-contained codes and do not necessitate issuing a show-cause notice before making a demand. The court noted that the provisions under Chapter XIV of the Act, which prescribe procedures for regular assessments, differ from the special provisions under Section 115 O, which do not require such procedural formalities. Therefore, the court concluded that there is no legal requirement for issuing a show-cause notice under Section 115 O before making a tax demand.

Issue 2: Breach of Principles of Natural Justice
The court addressed the petitioner's claim that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no proper show-cause notice was issued. The court noted that a notice dated 21.11.2017 was issued to the petitioner, calling for details, and several meetings were held where the petitioner's officials participated and were informed about the tax liability. The court emphasized that the purpose of a show-cause notice is to inform the party of the proposed action, which was effectively achieved through the notice and meetings. Hence, the court found no substance in the petitioner's argument and ruled that there was no breach of natural justice.

Issue 3: Bar under Section 245 RR
The court examined whether the Assessing Officer was prohibited from issuing the impugned order due to the bar under Section 245 RR, given that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 245Q for advance rulings. The court noted that the respondent had issued a notice on 21.11.2017, seeking information on remittances, before the petitioner approached the Authority for Advance Rulings on 20.03.2018. The court concluded that since the enquiry was already pending before the Assessing Officer, the Authority for Advance Rulings had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 245Q. Therefore, the bar under Section 245 RR did not apply, and the impugned order was validly issued.

Issue 4: Maintainability of the Writ Petition
The court considered whether the writ petition was maintainable, given that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 246 of the Act. The court cited several precedents, including decisions by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, which held that an assessee denying liability can appeal under Section 246. The court emphasized that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy and that the writ petition was an attempt to bypass the appeal process. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable at this stage.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to avail the appeal remedy within four weeks. The court noted that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 495 Crores in compliance with an earlier order and directed the Appellate Authority to consider this amount while entertaining the appeal. The court also maintained the status quo regarding fixed deposits for two weeks. The petition was dismissed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---