Writ Application Dismissed: Alternative Remedy Available

The court found the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 264A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appeal process before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The court did not delve into the alleged violation of principles of natural justice, leaving it for the appellate authority to consider. Interim relief was vacated, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 264A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Application:
The primary issue addressed by the court was whether it could entertain the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative statutory remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 264A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court referred to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of *Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. Chhabil Dass Agrawal* [(2014) 1 SCC 603], which established that the Income Tax Act provides a complete machinery for assessment/re-assessment and obtaining relief for improper orders passed by revenue authorities. The court emphasized that the High Court should not entertain a writ petition if an effective alternative remedy is available, except in exceptional cases where there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or other significant procedural irregularities.

2. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner contended that the ex parte assessment order dated 05.12.2018 was passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to present documentary evidence, thus violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that despite requesting a short adjournment to submit necessary documents, the respondent refused and passed the order ex parte. The court, however, noted that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunities to furnish details and explanations during the assessment proceedings, which were conducted through an online portal. The court cited the decision in *Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. Vs. SEBI* [(2013) 1 SCC 1], stating that the principles of natural justice have limitations and can only be availed by a party that has acted fairly.

3. Availability of an Alternative Statutory Remedy:
The court highlighted that the petitioner had an adequate statutory remedy available under Section 264A of the Income Tax Act to challenge the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The court reiterated the principle that when a statutory forum is available for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained. The court decided to relegate the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy by filing a statutory appeal before the competent authority. It was clarified that the appellate authority should not raise technical issues of limitation and must decide the appeal on merits in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the writ application was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The application was disposed of, directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the competent authority, which should consider the appeal on merits without raising technical issues of limitation. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, including the alleged violation of principles of natural justice, leaving these issues to be considered by the appellate authority. The interim relief, if any, was vacated, and no order as to costs was made.

---