Writ Petition Dismissed for Assessment Order Under Sections 147 and 144 IT Act; Appeal Is Proper Remedy

The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the assessment order framed under sections 147 read with 144 of the IT Act, holding that disputed questions of fact and jurisdictional issues are to be addressed by the appellate authority under the statute. The Court emphasized that an efficacious alternative remedy exists in the form of appeal, and the writ petition was not maintainable since it did not fall within the limited scope for such petitions. The Court noted that jurisdictional questions involve mixed questions of fact and law, which are better suited for determination by the appellate forums. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and all pending interlocutory applications were also dismissed.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether a writ petition challenging an assessment order framed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be entertained when an alternative statutory remedy is available.Whether the Assessing Officer erred in rejecting the petitioner's adjournment request and proceeding with assessment despite claimed health and bereavement issues.Whether the Assessing Officer, Ward 3(2), Purulia (West Bengal) had jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 and proceed with assessment of a taxpayer filing returns in Odisha.Whether the assessment order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice or is illegal, arbitrary, or without jurisdiction.Whether disputed factual issues relating to genuineness of transactions and claim of input tax credit can be examined in writ jurisdiction.Whether the writ jurisdiction can be exercised in cases involving alleged bogus purchase transactions and fraudulent availment of input tax credit under the GST regime.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The writ petition challenging the assessment order is not maintainable at this stage as an efficacious alternative remedy is available under the Income Tax Act, and the Court should not exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to circumvent the statutory appellate process.The Assessing Officer did not err in rejecting the adjournment request dated 19.03.2025, as sufficient opportunities were afforded to the petitioner throughout the assessment proceedings, and the assessment was required to be completed before the limitation period expired on 31.03.2025.The jurisdictional challenge against the Assessing Officer, Ward 3(2), Purulia, is not tenable as the petitioner had submitted to the jurisdiction by responding to notices and seeking time to adduce evidence; the issue of jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law better suited for appellate adjudication.The assessment order does not suffer from violation of principles of natural justice or jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.Disputed questions of fact regarding the genuineness of transactions and input tax credit claims cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction and must be adjudicated by the competent statutory authorities.The Court should not exercise writ jurisdiction in cases involving alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit, as such matters require detailed factual inquiry and are appropriately dealt with through the statutory appellate mechanism.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is discretionary and should not be exercised where an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy exists, unless exceptional circumstances such as breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, or jurisdictional excess are established.The Court relied on settled precedents distinguishing between "null and void" orders for want of jurisdiction and "illegal or irregular" orders which are amenable to correction in statutory proceedings, emphasizing that irregular assumption of jurisdiction does not render an order a nullity.The Court noted that the petitioner was aware of the limitation period and had ample opportunity to participate in the assessment proceedings but chose to delay and seek adjournment at the last moment, which was rightly refused by the Assessing Officer to prevent time-barred assessment.Regarding jurisdiction, the Court referred to authoritative decisions clarifying that submission to jurisdiction by the assessee precludes collateral challenge, and that jurisdictional issues involving mixed questions of fact and law are better addressed through appeals rather than writ petitions.The Court acknowledged the serious nature of allegations relating to bogus transactions and fraudulent input tax credit claims, recognizing that such complex factual disputes require detailed examination by the tax authorities and appellate forums rather than resolution in writ jurisdiction.The Court reiterated the settled legal position that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory remedies and should not be exercised to support litigants who have not availed available remedies or who attempt to bypass the appellate process.

---