TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 946
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... worth Rs. 2,98,10,170.88 and claimed input tax credit worth Rs. 17,94,964.04. A show cause notice dated 8 March 2016 was issued by the Assessing Officer requiring the petitioner to place on record Form-23 and other documents on the basis of which the petitioner claimed input tax credit. The petitioner submitted a reply. The Assessing Officer, however, by order dated 26 March 2016 enhanced the purchases by Rs. 3.5 crores from unregistered dealers and a liability of Rs. 46.60.433/- was fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the transaction was made through the Bank, it cannot be disbelieved and the enhanced purchase and sales which the Assessing Officer has found are based on no material. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to him by an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The remedy under the statute, however, must be effective and not a mere formality with no substantial relief. In Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana (1985) 3 SCC 267 this Court has noticed that if an appeal is from "Caesar to Caesar's wife" the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility. 17. In the instant case, neither has the writ petitioner- assessee described the available alternate remedy under the Act as ineffectual and non-efficacious while invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court nor has the High Court ascribed cogent and satisfactory reasons to have exercised its jurisdiction in the facts of instant case. In light of ....