TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dismissal of Writ Petition on Assessment Order, Petitioner Directed to Pursue Alternate Appeal Route</h1> <h3>Sri Chandra Sekar Reddy Bokkalapally Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre</h3> Sri Chandra Sekar Reddy Bokkalapally Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre - [2022] 444 ITR 581 (Telangana) Issues:Challenge to assessment order for the assessment year 2017-18 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Allegation of violation of principles of natural justice. Invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 despite availability of alternative remedy.Detailed Analysis:1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:- The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order for the assessment year 2017-18, alleging violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner received an opportunity to respond to the draft assessment order but requested additional time due to the auditor's illness. The respondent granted a limited extension, which the petitioner argued was insufficient given the complexity of the assessment. Despite submitting a general response, the final assessment order was passed under relevant sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226:- The petitioner contended that the case involved a violation of natural justice principles, justifying the invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Citing a recent Supreme Court decision, the petitioner argued that such violations allow for the High Court's intervention, even if alternative remedies exist. The respondent, however, argued that the petitioner was duly notified and had the opportunity to respond, making the writ jurisdiction unnecessary.3. Judicial Precedents and Legal Principles:- The court referenced established legal principles regarding the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. It highlighted that in cases of natural justice violations, challenges to statutes' vires, or excess of jurisdiction, the High Court can intervene despite the availability of alternative remedies. The court emphasized the consistency of this legal doctrine over time, citing relevant precedents to support its position.4. Decision and Remedial Measures:- After considering the arguments, the court found that the case did not warrant immediate intervention through writ jurisdiction. It concluded that the petitioner should pursue the alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. To facilitate this process, the court directed a 30-day moratorium on coercive actions based on the assessment order. The petitioner was advised to seek interim stay through appropriate applications before the assessing officer or the appellate authority.5. Disposition of the Writ Petition:- In light of the above analysis, the court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the appeal route for further redressal. The court clarified that any pending miscellaneous applications would be closed, and no costs were awarded in the matter.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised, legal arguments presented, judicial considerations, and the final decision rendered by the High Court in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
