TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (11) TMI 74
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh the entire proceedings made under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by contending, inter alia, that the petitioner-firm is a dealer of petrol, diesel, super kerosene oil and lubricants and the same are supplied by the Indian Oil Corporation, Digboi, from its various depots; and that the firm has been assessed to income-tax under section 143 since the assessment years 1973-74 to 1987-88 as per the provisions of law laid down under section 143 which was in force till its amendment came into force on and from April 1, 1989; and that the petitioner firm had submitted its return for the assessment year 1981-82 on September 30, 1981, and has been assessed to income-tax by the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Silchar, vide his order dated Sep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same were disposed of by the related order of February 7, 1992. According to the writ petitioner, the concerned Income-tax Officer most arbitrarily completed the assessment for the assessment year 1983-84 summarily under section 144/147 of the Act, vide order dated March 30, 1992, and had raised a huge demand and has started the penal proceeding against the petitioner. Being dissatisfied with the assessment, the writ petitioner has filed a separate writ petition as against the assessment order made by the competent authority in respect of the related assessment year 1983-84 before this court. The contesting respondents resisted the case of the writ petitioner by filing counter-affidavit contending, inter alia, that the related notice un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thority concerned. According to learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, non-compliance with procedure laid down in the relevant section of the Income-tax Act for issuance of the impugned notice/order under section 148 of the Act, which were in force prior to the related amendment effective from April 1, 1989, the impugned order/notice is not tenable in the eye of law and as such the impugned notification/order dated March 4, 1992, deserves to be set aside. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents argued that the impugned notice/order dated March 4, 1992, is a valid notice for the purpose of calling for the return for assessment year 1981-82 in the case of the assessee, the petitioner herein and the same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this aspect that if any person or persons is/are aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the concerned Income-tax Officer in respect of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, he/she or they has/have appropriate recourse and forum to file appeal or prefer revision before the appellate authority as required and contemplated under Chapter-XX of the Act. But, in the instant case, the writ petitioner did not approach the appropriate and competent authority for his redress under the related provisions of law as stated above, instead, the writ petitioner filed this writ petition on May 1, 1992, as against the impugned notice/order dated March 4, 1992, annexure-I to the writ petition. On a bare perusal of the statement of the writ petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us remedy... The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or Tribunal to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by a statute for obtaining relief where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another Tribunal or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute. The High Court normally will not permit by entertaining under article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created by the statute to be bypassed and leave the party applying to it to seek resort to that machinery so set up. This established principle of law finds its place in the decision of the apex co....