Girdhari Lal Goenka V. Union Of India

/27/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Girdhari Lal Goenka, the petitioner, who challenged the assessment order and subsequent notices issued under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the financial year 2021-22. The primary contention was the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The respondents argued that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to file an appeal under Section 246 A of the Act, 1961. The court acknowledged the existence of a statutory remedy but focused on the petitioner's claim of a procedural lapse in the hearing process, which it deemed significant enough to consider under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 820117 (HC-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors.[(1998) 8 SCC 1], N.P. Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer [AIR 1952 SCR 2018]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MANISH MISRA
• Assessee Lawyers: VAIBHAV PANDEY
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Demand notice; Natural Justice; Statutory remedy; Writ petition
• Section: 143(3); 274; 156; 271 AAC(1); 246 A

Judgement Text

"Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 27 of 2023 Petitioner :- Girdhari Lal Goenka , Kolkata Thru. Auth. Signatory Shri Prakash Chand Todi Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Revenue , New Delhi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vaibhav Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Manish Misra Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Manish Misra, counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3. The petitioner challenges the assessment order dated 30.12.2022 for the financial year 2021-22 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income T ax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1961'), the demand notice of the same date issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 as well as notices issued under Section 274 r/w Section 271 AAC(1) of the Act, 1961, which are consequential in nature. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Manish Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 2 & 3 that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to file an appeal under Section 246 A of the Act, 1961. The petitioner having statutory remedy, the writ petition may not be entertained. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 246A of the Act, 1961. However, he says that he has come before this Court only because he has not been given reasonable opportunity to be heard by the respondents and it has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors.[(1998) 8 SCC 1] that if principles of natural justice are violated and a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be entertained and the question of alternative remedy will not come in the way. This Court is of the opinion that the judgement rendered in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. (supra) is a judgment rendered by two Judges Bench and shall not overrule the Constitution Bench judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.P . Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer [AIR 1952 SCR 2018] which says that rights and liabilities created by a particular statute are governed by a statutory remedy available therein and the statutory remedy should first be availed before approaching the High Court in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. This writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file its appeal under Section 246 A of the Act, 1961 within a week from today along with an application for condonation of delay, if any duly supported with an affidavit and the application for interim relief. The said appeal shall be considered and an appropriate order be passed by the Competent Authority expeditiously. Order Date :- 31.1.2023 Nitesh Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench "