AUTOLITE INDIA LTD V. THE COMM OF I T AND ORS

SAW/411/2002

AI Insights

The case involves Autolite (India) Ltd., the appellant, challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The notice was allegedly time-barred, and the appellant sought to quash it through a writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy before the tax authority. The appellant then filed a special appeal against this decision. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's decision, emphasizing the need to exhaust alternative remedies and citing the Supreme Court's precedent in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income-Tax Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 744253 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R B MATHUR
• Assessee Lawyers: VIVEK SINGHAL
• Keywords: Efficacious Alternative Remedy; Jurisdiction; Notice; Time barred; Writ petition; Special Appeal
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.411/2002 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2566/2002 Autolite (India) Ltd., Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 26/04/2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. RANKA Mr. Vivek Singhal, for appellant Mr. R.B. Mathur, for non-appellants By this special appeal, a challenge is made to the order dated 22nd April, 2002 passed in the writ petition preferred by the appellant. The writ petition was filed to challenge the notice dated 20th March, 2002 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act of 1961”). Learned counsel for appellant submits that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 was barred by limitation thus should have been interfered by the learned Single Judge by exercising his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not necessary that due to availability of efficacious alternative remedy, the appellant should be relegated to exhaust it. The present is case of exceptional nature. The Division Bench while setting aside the 2 order of the learned Single Judge, may quash the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, being time barred. Learned counsel for non-appellants has opposed the appeal. He submits that on issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, the appellant was having opportunity to raise objections available to him. The appellant instead of raising objections to the notice before the competent authority, filed the writ petition. Learned Single Judge refused to exercise his extraordinary jurisdiction due to availability of efficacious alternative remedy. It is not necessary that even if the alternative remedy exists, the writ petition should be entertained. It is discretionary jurisdiction of the court. Once the court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has refused to entertain the writ petition in view of availability of alternative remedy, this court may not cause interference in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. A reference of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors., reported in (2003) 259 ITR 19 has been given. Therein, challenge to the notice by way of writ petition was not accepted. The assessee is having remedy before the authority concerned. It should have raised objections to the notice on all the available grounds. 3 We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. On a notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, challenge was made to it by way of writ petition. It was dismissed in view of availability of alternate remedies. The appellant has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge so as notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. It is alleged to be time barred and due to lack of jurisdiction for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. The objections pertaining to limitation as well as jurisdiction can very well be raised before the authority in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. We do not find it to be a case of exceptional nature where learned Single Judge should have interfered in the impugned notice. Learned Single Judge within his jurisdiction refused to entertain the writ petition and thereby the appellant is relegated to exhaust the remedy before the competent authority. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) supports the argument of the learned counsel for non-appellants. In view of above, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4 The special appeal against the said order is dismissed. It is however with liberty to the appellant to submit objections to the notice before the authority who issued the notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. In case of objections, the authority would decide it without pre-conceived notion and in accordance with law. [J.K. RANKA],J. [M.N. BHANDARI], J. FRBOHRA Certificate: “All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” Fateh Raj Bohra, Private Secretary "