Vijay Kumar Gupta V. Union of India and Respondent no. 2 and 3

WPMS/2141/2022

AI Insights

Vijay Kumar Gupta, the petitioner, approached the High Court of Uttarakhand seeking to quash a show cause notice and subsequent orders issued by the Income Tax Department under Sections 148 and 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner challenged these actions, claiming they were unjust. However, the court referenced a similar case (Anshul Jain Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) where the Punjab and Haryana High Court had dismissed a similar writ petition, emphasizing that courts should not interfere at such a premature stage when the statutory authority's proceedings are not concluded. The Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision. Consequently, the Uttarakhand High Court dismissed Gupta's writ petition, advising him to approach the appropriate authority for a hearing and decision in accordance with the law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 691453 (HC-UTTARAKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Anshul Jain Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and another
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S C DUMKA; HARI BHATIA
• Assessee Lawyers: SAGAR KOTHARI
• Keywords: Certiorari; Certiorari; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Quashing; Show cause notice; Statutory Authority
• Section: 148; 148 A (d)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (MS) No. 2141 of 2022 Vijay Kumar Gupta. .......…......Petitioner. Through: Shri Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner. -Versus- Union of India and others. ……...Respondents. Through: Shri S.C. Dumka, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India. Shri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3. Date of hearing and judgment : 07.09.2022 Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs: “i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned show cause notice dated 09.03.2022 issued by respondent no. 3 (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition). ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.03.2022 passed by respondent no. 3 under Section 148 A (d) of the Income Tax Act (Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition). iii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.03.2022 issued by respondent no. 3 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (Annexure No. 4 to this writ petition). 2 iv. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling the entire records and quashing the entire proceedings arising out of impugned notice dated 19.03.2022 (Annexure No. 4 to this writ petition) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act against the petitioner.” 2. It is borne out from the records that firstly, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the show cause notice issued to him and secondly, he has challenged the proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. It is submitted by Shri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the Revenue that the same proceedings were put to challenge before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 10219 of 2022 (Anshul Jain Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and another) and as per decision dated 02.06.2022, the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has come to the conclusion that in such matters, the Court should not interfere. Thus, it is appropriate to take note of the observations made by the Division Bench, which read as under: “Thus, the consistent view is that where the proceedings have not even been concluded by the statutory authority, the writ Court should not interfere at such a pre-mature stage. Moreover it is not a case where from bare reading of notice it can be axiomatically held that the authority has clutched upon the jurisdiction not vested in it. The correctness of order under Section 148A (d) is being challenged on the factual premise contending that jurisdiction though vested has been wrongly 3 exercised. By now it is well settled that there is vexed distinction between jurisdictional error and error of law / fact within jurisdiction. For rectification of errors statutory remedy has been provided. In the light of aforesaid settled proposition of law, we find that there is no reason to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India at this intermediate stage when the proceedings initiated are yet to be concluded by a statutory authority. Hence the writ petition is dismissed.” 4. That matter was carried to Hon’ble Supreme Court by Shri Anshul Jain, petitioner therein, which was registered as Special Leave to Appeal No. 14823 of 2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not consider it appropriate even to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the same by virtue of order dated 02.09.2022. 5. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority, who in turn, shall hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.) SKS "