2021 (9) TMI 1275

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rtual Court. Mr.A.N.R.Jayapratap, learned junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax accepts notice on behalf of lone respondent, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, main writ petition is taken up as the matter turns on a very short point. 3. In the captioned main writ petition, an Assessment Order being 'order dated 12.03.2021 bearing reference ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2020-21/1031436742(1)' (hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity) has been called in question. Learned counsel for writ petitioner points out that the impugned order pertains to the assessment year 2018-19. Learned counsel submits that the writ petitioner is entitled to get deduction under Section 80B of 'The Income-tax Ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....an appeal. The right of the writ petitioner to raise this point before the Appellate Authority is preserved. This Court has repeatedly held that alternate remedy, though not a absolute rule i.e., a rule of discretion and self imposed restraint qua writ court has to be applied strictly when it comes to fiscal statutes as long as exceptions such as NJP violation are not attracted. This view of this court has been taken by respectfully following the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a long line of case laws including Dunlop India, Satyawati Tondon and K.C.Mathew case laws being Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal Vs Dunlop India Ltd. reported in (1985) 1 SCC 260, United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati To....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Act. Upon a detailed consideration of the statutory scheme under the SARFAESI Act, the availability of remedy to the aggrieved under Section 17 before the Tribunal and the appellate remedy under Section 18 before the Appellate Tribunal, the object and purpose of the legislation, it was observed that a writ petition ought not to be entertained in view of the alternate statutory remedy available holding: (SCC pp.123 & 128, Paras 43 & 55) "43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this Rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of tax....