Writ jurisdiction and statutory tax appeal: inordinate delay and an available appellate remedy can bar challenge to a Section 143(1) intimation.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised where a taxpayer challenges an intimation under Section 143(1) after inordinate delay and laches, particularly when the taxpayer had participated in the proceedings and pursued related remedies without promptly questioning the intimation. The availability of an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 253 before the ITAT also weighs against writ maintainability, and the court will generally decline to bypass that appellate mechanism absent exceptional grounds. The commentary emphasises that delay and failure to use the statutory route can defeat maintainability, leaving the aggrieved party to pursue the prescribed appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was liable to be dismissed for inordinate delay and laches; (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the available statutory remedy of appeal under Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was liable to be dismissed for inordinate delay and laches.

Analysis: The intimation under Section 143(1) was issued in 2019, whereas the writ petition was filed only in 2026. The petitioner had been participating in the assessment proceedings and had also pursued remedies against related orders, yet did not challenge the intimation for several years. The delay was therefore not treated as a mere technical lapse but as a substantial factor affecting the maintainability of the writ remedy.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioner and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the available statutory remedy of appeal under Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: The petitioner had already availed the first appellate remedy before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and a further statutory appeal lay to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Since the challenge was not taken promptly and no exceptional ground warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction was made out, the Court declined to bypass the statutory appellate mechanism. The Court also confined itself to the maintainability objection and did not enter the merits.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be not maintainable and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and left the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, resulting in dismissal of the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will ordinarily not be exercised where the petitioner approaches the Court after inordinate delay and bypasses an efficacious statutory appellate remedy without demonstrating exceptional grounds.

---