HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

WP/17540/2014

AI Insights

The case involves Healthcare Global Enterprises Limited, which filed writ petitions against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, challenging an order and demand notices dated 25.3.2014 under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the order was passed under an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, citing exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy as recognized by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal. The High Court of Karnataka, however, found that the statutory machinery provided an adequate remedy and thus dismissed the writ petitions, advising the petitioner to seek relief through the statutory appellate process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 727148 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS vs CHHABIL DASS AGARWAL (2013) 357 ITR (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: K R VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Alternative remedy; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Writ petition; Erroneous Exercise
• Section: 201(1); 201(1A); 246(A)(1)(h)(a)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NOS. 17540-17541/2014(T-IT) BETWEEN: HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, HCG TOWER, 8, P.KALINGA RAO ROAD, SAMPANGI RAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560027, REPTD. BY A SADASIVAM, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O A.ANANTHARAMAN. ..PETITIONER (BY SHRI. K.R.VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS) CIRCLE 16(2), BANGALORE, 4TH FLOOR, HMT BHAVAN, 59, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 032. ..RESPONDENT (BY SHRI.SHRI. K.V.ARAVIND, SR. STANDING COUNSEL) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 25.3.2014 ALONG WITH THE NOTICES OF DEMAND DATED 25.3. 2014 VIDE ANNEXURES K AND K1 ETC. 2 THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING; ORDER Order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(1) passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 25.3.2014 (Annexure-K) is assailed in these writ petitions. As against that order, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 246(A) (1)(h)(a) of the Act. In that view of the matter, these writ petitions are not maintainable. 2. However, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade the court by contending that the impugned order falls within the exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy and therefore even according to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of the COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS – Vs – CHHABIL DASS AGARWAL (2013) 357 ITR (SC), these writ petitions would be maintainable, having regard to the fact that the impugned order is passed by an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. 3 3. I have perused paragraph - 19 of the aforesaid judgment, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined as follows; “ 19. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Titagarh Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ 4 petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.” In fact, in the said judgment, the Supreme Court has categorically held that when a statutory machinery has been created, an assessee cannot be permitted to abandon that machinery invoking the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. In that view of the matter, these writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable, having regard to the alternative statutory remedy, which is available to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent states that although this Court had earlier granted an interim order in these writ petitions, the petitioner is empowered to seek the same orders before the Appellate Authority in case the petitioner files such an appeal. 6. Having regard to the fact that this Court had earlier granted an interim order in these writ petitions 5 which was subsequently extended, while relegating the petitioner to the Appellate Authority who is at liberty to file an appeal within a period of fifteen days from today and to seek protective orders from that authority, the respondent is directed not to take any precepitative action, pursuant to the order impugned in these writ petitions, till the petitioner files an appeal and the Appellate Authority consideres and disposes of an application if any, to be filed by the petitioner herein seeking interim orders. 7. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, these writ petitions stand dismissed. All contentions of both sides are left open. 8. In view of the disposal of these writ petitions, I.A.2/2014 would not require any consideration and is directed to be filed. Sd/- JUDGE Msu "