Alectra Construction Limited through its Director namely Dhananjay Kumar V. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, Office of the Income Tax Officer ITO, Ward- 3 (1), Darbhanga and The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna and The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna and The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, N.H. Wing, Patna and The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3, Darbhanga and The Engineer-In-Chief, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna and The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, North, Patna and The Engineer in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna and The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division No. 01, Muzaffarpur and The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Samastipur and The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Samastipur and The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Rosera and The Executive Engineer, N.H. Division, Chapra and The Executive Engineer, N.H. Division, Muzaffarpur

CWJC/6037/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Alectra Construction Limited, represented by its director Dhananjay Kumar, who filed a writ petition against multiple respondents including the Union of India and various officials from the Income Tax Department and the Road Construction Department of Bihar. The petitioner sought to quash demand notices for outstanding tax from the assessment years 2008-09 to 2015-16 and a notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which resulted in the freezing of the company's bank account. The petitioner also requested a mandamus to direct the State to deposit the deducted tax to the Income Tax Department and to initiate action against the erring officer. The court, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, found that the petitioner had not sufficiently justified bypassing the statutory remedies and thus dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 800138 (HC-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Excise and Taxation Officer- cum-Assessing Authority and Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ARCHANA SINHA; KOMAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VINAY RANJAN
• Keywords: Alternative remedy; Demand notice; Income Tax; Statutory remedy; Tax Deduction; Writ of Certiorari; Frozen account
• Section: 226(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6037 of 2024 ====================================================== Alectra Construction Limited through its Director namely Dhananjay Kumar, aged about 43 years, Male, Son of Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Its Registered office at- New Colony Dharampur, P.S.- Town, District- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, Office of the Income Tax Officer ITO, Ward- 3 (1), Darbhanga. 2. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, N.H. Wing, Patna. 5. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3, Darbhanga. 6. The Engineer-In-Chief, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 7. The Chief Engineer, Road Contruction Department, North, Patna. 8. The Engineer in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna. 9. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division No. 01, Muzaffarpur. 10. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Samastipur. 11. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Samastipur. 12. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Rosera. 13. The Executive Engineer, N.H. Division, Chapra. 14. The Executive Engineer, N.H. Division, Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Ranjan, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Sr. Advocate. : Ms. Komal, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) Date : 07-02-2025 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the demand notices dated 27.10.2023 issued by the Income Tax Officer, ITO Patna High Court CWJC No.6037 of 2024 dt.07-02-2025 2/3 Ward No.3 (1) Darbhanga, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department for demand outstanding of the Assessment Year 2008-09 to 2015-16 whereby petitioner was directed to make payment of demand outstanding for said Assessment years and also to quash the notice passed under Section 226 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for remittance of Rs.1,58,63,260/- to Income Tax Department by which account of the petitioner company has been frozen and same has been communicated to the petitioner by the Bank and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 to deposit the demand outstanding to the Income Tax as the tax deduction made by the State respondent but same was not deposited to the Income Tax Department and also to enquire into the matter and initiate suitable action against the erring officer. 2. In paragraph no.16 of the writ petition, petitioner has stated as under:- “That the petitioner has no other equally efficacious and alternative remedy than to move before this Hon’ble Court.” 3. The aforementioned material is not sufficient to sidetrack the statutory remedy available to the petitioner. For the purpose of overlooking the alternative remedy, certain principles Patna High Court CWJC No.6037 of 2024 dt.07-02-2025 3/3 have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Excise and Taxation Officer- cum-Assessing Authority and Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95. The petitioner is unable to point out any of the principles, therefore, the petitioner without exhausting the statutory remedy available to him has rushed to this Court and it is a pre-mature writ petition. 4. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to invoke statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of six weeks from today. The delay would not be a hurdle to entertain the appeal to be filed on behalf of petitioner due to time spent in this Court from the date of filing till today. If Section 14 of the Limitation Act is applicable, the same shall be taken note of by the Appellate Authority. 5. With the above observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of. ritik/- (P. B. Bajanthri, J) (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 15.02.2025 Transmission Date NA "