2025 (9) TMI 313 - HC - Income Tax

Chartered accountant's challenge to 7.5% pre-deposit for foreign remittances dismissed for failure to prove incapacity

Piyush Tarawat Versus Union Of India (Through Its Secretary), Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs Branch Secretariat, Mumbai And Ors.

Piyush Tarawat Versus Union Of India (Through Its Secretary), Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs Branch Secretariat, Mumbai And Ors. ... ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original imposing a monetary penalty should be entertained where an alternate remedy of appeal is available. 2. Whether a bald/unsworn or inadequately supported assertion of inability to make the statutory pre-deposit (7.5% of the penalty) suffices to justify direct writ relief. 3. The evidentiary threshold and nature of financial disclosure required from a penalised person to demonstrate genuine inability to comply with a pre-deposit condition so as to bypass the appellate remedy. 4. Whether factual distinctions (magnitude of penalty and the financial position of the person) may justify entertaining writ petitions despite existence of an appeal remedy, and how prior decisions treating extreme penalties should be applied or distinguished. 5. Whether the Court may grant procedural relief (extension/relaxation of limitation) to enable an appeal to be filed when the writ is declined on grounds of alternate remedy. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Entitlement to writ relief where an alternate remedy of appeal exists Legal framework: The principle of exhaustion of alternate statutory remedies requires that where an effective and efficacious appeal remedy exists, extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked. The Court may, in exceptional circumstances, entertain a writ despite availability of appeal only if the alternative remedy is shown to be inadequate or unavailing. Precedent Treatment: The Court followed prior decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court that emphasise the need to exhaust alternate remedies; earlier reasoning in a recent departmental decision was applied (referred to by the Court) to decline writ interference. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court declined to examine merits of the impugned order because the petitioner had an adequate remedy by way of appeal. The petitioner failed to make out circumstances warranting invocation of writ jurisdiction in lieu of appeal. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where an effective appellate remedy exists, writ jurisdiction should not be exercised in absence of exceptional circumstances demonstrating inadequacy of the appeal. Conclusion: Writ petition refused on the ground that the statutory appeal remedy is available and the petitioner failed to establish grounds to bypass it. Issue 2: Sufficiency of bald assertion of inability to make pre-deposit Legal framework: When statutory law conditions an appeal on a pre-deposit (here, 7.5% of the penalty), a claim of inability to make such pre-deposit must be supported by credible, full, and honest financial disclosure to justify exceptional relief. Precedent Treatment: The Court applied established expectations that affidavits of financial incapacity must be candid and complete; prior decisions which entertained writs where impecuniosity was convincingly demonstrated were noted as distinguishable. Interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner's affidavit was found to be evasive and deceptive, inspiring no confidence. The Court observed concealment of assets and a failure to make usual averments explaining why the appeal route could not be realistically pursued. A single-sentence pleading that the penalty 'renders the Petitioner unable to file an appeal' was held inadequate. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A mere bald statement of inability to make pre-deposit, unsupported by full and credible financial disclosure, does not justify bypassing the appellate remedy. Conclusion: The petitioner's assertion of inability to pre-deposit was rejected as not credible; writ relief was therefore inappropriate on that ground. Issue 3: Evidentiary threshold for financial disclosure to bypass appeal remedy Legal framework: The person seeking to avoid pre-deposit must file a detailed affidavit disclosing assets, liabilities, income streams and any other relevant financial particulars, so the Court can objectively assess inability to comply. Precedent Treatment: The Court applied its own prior reasoning and that in higher court precedents requiring a demonstrable and verifiable financial incapacity before extraordinary relief is granted. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court required and reviewed the affidavit filed; finding it lacking in candour and completeness, it concluded that the petitioner failed to meet the required evidentiary threshold. The petitioner's failure to explain omission of customary averments about alternate remedies reinforced the inadequacy. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Credible and full financial disclosure is a precondition to entertain a writ in lieu of appeal on the ground of inability to make a statutory pre-deposit. Conclusion: The affidavit did not meet the minimum standard; therefore relief to bypass the appeal process was denied. Issue 4: Application and distinction of precedents where writs were entertained in cases of exorbitant penalties Legal framework: Exceptional precedents may permit writ jurisdiction where the quantum of penalty is such and the financial position of the penalised individual so impecunious that the appellate remedy is effectively illusory. Precedent Treatment: The Court acknowledged earlier matters in which petitions were entertained when penalties exceeded Rs. 100 crores and employees were found to be incapable of making pre-deposits; however, those cases were factually distinguishable. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that those precedents are confined to extreme factual matrices-very large penalties and demonstrable inability of individuals to pay-whereas the present case, involving a Rs. 35 crore penalty and an unconvincing affidavit, did not present comparable circumstances. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Exceptional precedents are fact-specific and do not automatically apply; factual comparability must be established before such precedents justify bypassing appeal remedies. Conclusion: The petitioner's factual position was distinguishable from extreme precedents relied upon; hence those authorities did not warrant entertaining the writ. Issue 5: Power to grant procedural relief to enable appeal (direction on limitation) Legal framework: Where a writ is declined but the Court recognises potential hardship or procedural impediment, it may grant limited procedural concessions to ensure effective access to the appellate forum (for example, permitting filing within a specified period and directing the appellate authority to ignore limitation if conditions are met). Precedent Treatment: The Court exercised equitable discretion consistent with practice of granting time-limited relief to file appeals and directing appellate authorities to entertain them on merits without being hyper-technical about limitation when justified by circumstances. Interpretation and reasoning: Although the petition was declined, the Court afforded the petitioner liberty to prefer an appeal within four weeks after uploading of the order, subject to compliance with legal requirements, and directed the Appellate Authority to entertain such appeal on merits without advertence to limitation. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Court may, in declining extraordinary relief, nonetheless grant limited procedural accommodation to enable pursuit of the ordinary statutory remedy where justice so requires. Conclusion: The petitioner was granted a four-week window to file an appeal with the appellate authority directed to hear it on merits disregarding limitation, subject to compliance with legal formalities.