TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... short 'the Act') and Assessment order dated 24.3.2024 passed by the respondent - Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2016-17. 3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioner submitted that in case of the petitioner, similar notice is challenged in Special Civil Application No. 15569 of 2023 and this Court has issued notice in the said petition and by order dated 20th March, 2024 in Civil Application (For Stay), the Assessing Officer is restrained from passing the final order without the permission of this Court and the said petition is now adjourned to 30th July, 2024. 3.1 It was submitted that facts in this petition as well as facts in the petition which is pending are similar as the respondent - Assessing Officer issued notice un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner to avail alternative remedy of preferring appeal before the CIT (A). 3.5 In support of his submissions, learned advocate referred to and relied on the decision of the Apex Court in case of M/s. Godrej Saa Lee Ltd. v. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority being Civil Appeal No. 5393 of 2010 decided vide judgment dated 01st February, 2023. 4. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner, it is not in dispute that this petition is filed after the petitioner participated in assessment proceedings before the respondent - Assessing Officer after issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act. 4.1 On perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner in response to the notice under Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t documentary evidence is required to be appreciated. 5. The Apex Court in the case of M/s. Godrej Saa Lee Ltd. (supra), while considering the entertainability of writ by the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has held as under. "6. At the end of the last century, this Court in paragraph 15 of the its decision reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others) carved out the exceptions on the existence whereof a Writ Court would be justified in entertaining a writ petition despite the party approaching it not having availed the alternative remedy provided by the statute. The same read as under: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundament....