2005 (3) TMI 87

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t petition being W.P. No. 38648 of 2004 was dismissed on February 7, 2005, on the ground that the assessment order has already been passed on December 29, 2004, and the writ petition challenging that assessment order being W.P. No. 1725 of 2005 (see [2005] 274 ITR 37 (Mad)) has also been dismissed on January 27, 2005. W.P. No. 1725 of 2005 (see [2005] 274 ITR 37 (Mad)) had been dismissed by the learned single judge on the ground that since the assessment order has been passed the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under section 246 read with section 251 of the Income-tax Act. We agree with the view taken by the learned single judge that the appellant has an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal. In W....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld not be invoked in matters relating to its provisions. A similar view was taken in Asst. Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 172 (SC) ; AIR 1985 SC 330. In Asst. Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 172; AIR 1985 SC 330. The Supreme Court observed: "In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1983] 142 ITR 663; AIR 1983 SC 603, A.P. Sen, E.S. Venkataramiah and R.B. Misra, JJ. Held that where the statute itself provided the petitioners with an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the prescribed authority, a second appeal to the Tribunal and thereafter to have the case stated to the High Court, it was not for the High Court to exercise its extraordinary j....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ute the party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. All these decisions are related to taxing statutes, and are hence apposite to the present context. In Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh, AIR 1999 SC 2859 and Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan, [2001] 107 Comp Cas 20; [2001] 6 SCC 569 the Supreme Court held that if the statute provides for remedy of revision or appeal, the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked. In Union of India v. T.R. Varma [1957-58] 13 FJR 237; AIR 1957 SC 882 the Supreme Court held that it is well-settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of the High ....