Court dismisses writ challenging tax orders for AY 2015-2016, mandates appeal under Section 246A

The court dismissed the writ-application challenging various tax orders for AY 2015-2016, emphasizing the availability of an appeal under Section 246A before the Commissioner (Appeals). It held that the statutory remedy of appeal was sufficient to address the petitioner's contentions, rejecting the need for extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The court directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on its merits. Consequently, the writ-application was dismissed, ad-interim relief vacated, and the petitioner instructed to pursue the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Act.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 143(3) for AY 2015-2016, demand notice under Section 156, show cause notice under Section 274 r/w Section 271(1)(c), notices under Section 220(2), mandamus for refund, appeal under Section 246A before CIT (Appeals), writ-application jurisdiction, availability of alternative remedy.

Analysis:
The writ-application sought various reliefs, including quashing the order dated 20.12.2018 passed under Section 143(3) for AY 2015-2016, setting aside the demand notice under Section 156, show cause notice under Section 274 r/w Section 271(1)(c), and notices under Section 220(2). Additionally, it requested a mandamus for the immediate refund of an amount collected illegally. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 246A before the CIT (Appeals) to prevent limitation issues in case the court did not intervene. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was without jurisdiction, violated natural justice principles, and was ultra vires Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, raising multiple contentions challenging its legality and validity.

The court noted that an appeal under Section 246A of the Act had already been preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the impugned order. The court emphasized that the statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner and that the contentions raised could be adequately addressed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in its appellate jurisdiction. The court found no justification to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal and exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the court rejected the writ-application on the ground of the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was already pending. The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the case and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal in accordance with the law on its own merit.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ-application, vacated the earlier granted ad-interim relief, and discharged the notice. The petitioner was instructed to pursue the appeal pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Act.

---