Binding Tribunal ruling bars contrary Section 201 orders; writ maintainable despite alternate remedy, with remand from notice stage.

Writ jurisdiction remained available against Section 201 orders because the challenge went to the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction, and the existence of an appeal did not bar relief where the issue had already been decided between the same parties. On identical facts, the Assessing Officer could not sustain orders contrary to a binding Tribunal ruling unless that ruling had been stayed or displaced by a competent court. The impugned Section 201 orders were therefore quashed, but the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer (TDS) to proceed from the stage of issuance of show cause notice in accordance with the earlier direction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions challenging the orders under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were not maintainable because an alternate remedy of appeal was available. (ii) Whether the orders under Section 201 could be sustained when they proceeded on a basis contrary to the Tribunal's ruling in the same underlying controversy and identical facts.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions challenging the orders under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were not maintainable because an alternate remedy of appeal was available.

Analysis: The availability of an appeal did not bar writ jurisdiction on the facts of the case. The issue had already been examined in earlier proceedings between the same parties and was no longer res integra. The challenge went to the very jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (TDS), and the existence of an alternative remedy could not cure an order passed without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternate remedy was rejected and the writ petitions were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the orders under Section 201 could be sustained when they proceeded on a basis contrary to the Tribunal's ruling in the same underlying controversy and identical facts.

Analysis: The Court treated the present years as factually identical to the earlier years in which orders under Section 201 had already been quashed. It held that the Assessing Officer was bound to act in conformity with the Tribunal's decision unless its operation had been stayed or otherwise displaced by a competent court. Since the impugned orders were founded on a position contrary to that binding ruling, they could not survive. The Court nevertheless directed remand to the stage of issuance of show cause notice under Section 201 in line with the earlier Supreme Court direction.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer (TDS) at the stage of issuance of show cause notice under Section 201.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded to the extent that the adverse Section 201 orders were invalidated, but the proceedings were not finally terminated and were sent back for continuation from the notice stage.

Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate tax authority cannot sustain an order that is contrary to a binding Tribunal ruling on identical facts unless that ruling has been stayed or otherwise displaced by a competent court.

---