Alternate remedy bars writ review where taxability of trademark-related IP consideration requires factual and legal examination.

A writ challenge to an order under Section 201(1) and Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act was declined because an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 253 was available. The Bombay HC treated the controversy as involving mixed questions of fact and law on the taxability of consideration for trademark-related intellectual property, the applicability of Section 195, and the territoriality principle. It noted no patent lack of jurisdiction or gross illegality to justify bypassing the appellate remedy, and the factual examination of the agreement and surrounding circumstances was better suited to appeal. The limitation issue under Section 201 was also regarded as suitable for appellate consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging an order under Section 201(1) and Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 should be entertained despite the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The dispute involved mixed questions of fact and law concerning the taxability of consideration paid for acquisition of trademark-related intellectual property, the applicability of Section 195, and the relevance of the territoriality principle and cited precedents. The Court held that the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 201 and that the petition did not disclose any patent lack of jurisdiction or gross illegality warranting departure from the settled rule of relegating the assessee to the statutory appellate remedy. The availability of an efficacious appeal, together with the need for factual examination of the agreement and surrounding circumstances, made writ intervention inappropriate. The Court also noted that the issue of limitation under Section 201 was not so clear as to justify writ interference and was a matter that could be canvassed in appeal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternate remedy and the challenge to the impugned order was rejected.

---