2025 (4) TMI 298 - HC - Income Tax

Tax Assessment Challenge Rejected: Statutory Appeal Route Mandated, Procedural Concerns to Be Addressed Through Proper Legal Channels

ExxonMobil Company Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax 6 (1) (1), Mumbai & Anr.

HC dismissed the petition challenging a tax assessment order, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal remedy. Despite acknowledging ... Appeal against order being issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It would not be appropriate for us to decide on the rival contentions, particularly since the Petitioner has an alternate remedy of appeal. Before the Appellate Authority, all these contentions can be raised, and the AO would be in a better position, at least in the first instance, to decide on such issues. At this stage, we can only say that the arguable issues raised on either side. The issues raise disputed or at least mixed questions of law and fact. No case is made out in such circumstances, bypassing the statutorily prescribed remedies. In the decisions relied upon by the Petitioner, the Respondents offered a concession, and based upon such concession, this Court remanded the matters. Nothing in the earlier decisions indicates that the objection regarding the exhaustion of alternate remedies was raised or decided by this Court. We decline to entertain this Petition but with leave to the Petitioner to avail of the alternate statutory remedy of Appeal under the IT Act. However, we record that this Petition was instituted on 30 December 2021 and has been pending until today. Therefore, the Assessing Officer should consider this factor should the Petitioner institute an Appeal within four weeks from today. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include: Whether the order giving effect dated 7 February 2020, issued for the Assessment Year 2008-2009, is void ab initio due to being issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation and without a draft Assessment Order. Whether the Petitioner should be compelled to exhaust the alternate statutory remedy of appeal before approaching the High Court. Whether the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction despite the availability of an alternate remedy.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Validity of the Order Giving EffectRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Petitioner contends that the order giving effect is void ab initio as it was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period and without a draft Assessment Order, violating statutory procedures. The Petitioner references a previous decision by the Court in similar circumstances where challenges were accepted without relegating to alternate remedies.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court notes that the Petitioner has admitted the impugned order is appealable. However, the Petitioner argues that the appeal remedy is not efficacious due to the procedural violations. The Respondent counters that the case was a remand by the ITAT, negating the need for a draft Assessment Order, and argues that the limitation period should consider the time taken by the Transfer Pricing Officer.Key evidence and findings: The Court acknowledges the arguable issues raised by both parties but emphasizes that these involve disputed or mixed questions of law and fact.Application of law to facts: The Court refrains from deciding on the merits of these contentions, indicating that the Appellate Authority is better positioned to address such issues in the first instance.Treatment of competing arguments: The Court recognizes the Petitioner's reliance on precedent but highlights that previous decisions involved concessions by the Respondents, which are not present in this case.Conclusions: The Court declines to entertain the Petition, directing the Petitioner to pursue the alternate statutory remedy of appeal.2. Exhaustion of Alternate Remedies and Writ JurisdictionRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Petitioner cites the Supreme Court judgment in Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd vs State of Bihar & Ors, asserting that alternate remedies should not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court agrees in principle with the proposition that alternate remedies do not bar writ jurisdiction. However, it emphasizes that the Supreme Court's ruling was based on specific facts where the High Court erred in its judgment regarding disputed questions of fact.Key evidence and findings: The Court notes that the issues raised involve mixed questions of law and fact, which are more appropriately addressed through the statutory appeal process.Application of law to facts: The Court concludes that bypassing the statutory remedy is unwarranted given the nature of the issues.Treatment of competing arguments: The Court distinguishes the present case from the Supreme Court precedent by focusing on the factual context and the availability of an efficacious appeal process.Conclusions: The Court declines to exercise its writ jurisdiction, directing the Petitioner to pursue an appeal.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Court states, 'No case is made out in such circumstances, bypassing the statutorily prescribed remedies.'Core principles established: The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory remedies should be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction, especially when the issues involve mixed questions of law and fact.Final determinations on each issue: The Court declines to entertain the Petition, granting the Petitioner leave to institute an appeal within four weeks. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the Petition's pendency period if an appeal is filed. The Appellate Authority is instructed to expedite the appeal process, aiming for resolution within five months.