2025 (6) TMI 1415

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4). JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) PER. H.S. THANGKHIEW, JUDGE: 1. These two writ petitions being similar in facts and circumstances are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The writ petitioner in these two writ petitions is stated to be a business man belonging to the Khasi Scheduled Tribe community and is before this Court seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents (Income Tax Authorities) for stay of recovery proceedings of an amount mentioned in Demand Notices dated 26.02.2024 in (WP(C) No. 52 of 2025) and 15.02.2024 in (WP(C) No. 65 of 2025) issued under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and for directions not to freeze the Bank Accounts, or to attach the assets, or to take any coercive action until the final disposal ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating certain Bank deposits as unexplained income under Section 69A. A Demand Notice was thereafter issued under Section 156, raising a tax demand of Rs. 13,46,02,272/- against the petitioner. 5. It is the case of the writ petitioner that due to inadequate knowledge of tax procedures and lack of proper advice from his earlier Chartered Accountant, he was unable to file an appeal within the prescribed period, and on realizing the urgency of the matter had then preferred statutory appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) alongwith applications for condonation for delay, and also for stay of the demand under Section 220(6). In the meantime, however, the petitioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... before two judicial forums i.e. before the Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) under Section 246A and before this Court, which is impermissible in law. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of this contention:- i) AIR 1970 SC 1 Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar vs. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat (Para-8) ii) AIR 1977 SC 898 Jai Singh vs. Union of India 8. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that as there is alternative remedy, the writ petitions should not be entertained and has relied upon the judgment dated 12.11.2024 passed by the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 209 of 2022, wherein the Court did not entertain the writ petition more particularly as the appeal was filed pri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tions are limited only to prayers for stay of the recovery proceedings, and not for issuance of a writ of certiorari against the Assessment Orders are very clear. The short point for determination is therefore in spite of availing of statutory appeal, which is pending consideration, whether the petitioner will be entitled to the prayers made herein. 11. It is settled law that one cannot pursue two remedies in respect of the same matter, and as such, these two writ petitions were liable to be not entertained at the threshold itself. However, on consideration of the fact that specific prayers and submissions had been made, that the appeals that had been filed were yet to be taken up as the delay was yet to be condoned, and that the petitione....