( 1 ) BECAUSE common questions of law and facts arisa in these six petitions the are disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in WPs. 3447, 3448 and 3578 of 1973 is M/s Stump schuela and Somappa (P) Ltd In WPs. 3447 and 3448 of 1973 the petitioner has questioned the notices issued by the Income Tax Officer under s. 8 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in respect of assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. In WP. 3578 of 1973 the petitioner has questioned th? validity of the notice issued under S. 16 of the Act by the) Commr of Income Tax in respect of assessment year 1971-72. WP. 1131 of 1974 is filed by Senapathy Whitely (P) Ltd, questioning the validity of the notice issued by the Commr of I. T. under s. 16 of the Act in respect of assessment year 1969-70. WPs2551 and 2552 of 1974 are filed by International Instruments P Ltd questioning the validity of the notices issued by the ITO under S. 8 of the Act in respect of the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72.

( 3 ) THE petitioners are assessees under the Act. The assessments during the relevant years were completed under the Act by the Income tax Authorities and the amounts demanded from them were paid by the petitioners. It would appear that in the year 1973 the ITO was of the view that there has been under-asessment under the Act in the case of the petitioners in WPs. 3447 and 3448 of 1973 and 2551 and 2552 of 1974 and issued notices under S. 8 of the Act to the petitioners to show cause as to why action should not be taken to, reassess the petitioners. Similarly, the commr of I. T. was of the view that the order passed by the ITO against the petitioners in WPs3578 of 1973 and 1173 of 1974 was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and issued notices under S. 16 of the Act asking them to show cause as to why action should not be taken thereunder. Both the ITO and the, Commissioner were of the; opinion that there has been excessive allowance by way of statutory deduction in thei case of the petitioners and therefore there was under-assessment. The ground on which the authorities concerned came; to that conclusion was that the amounts which had been allowed to be deducted under Ss. 80 (I) and 80 (J) of the income Tax Act had not been taken intq consideration at the time the assessment orders were passed under the Act while determining the extent of statutory deduction the petitioners were entitled, and that Rule, 4 of the Second Schedule of the Act had not been applied in the case of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the notices issued either under S. 8 or S. 16 of the Act, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

( 4 ) AT this stage it is necessary to dispose of a preliminary objection raised by Sri S. R. Rajasekhara Murthy, learned Counsel for the Revenue regarding the maintainability of these petitions. He contended that it was open to the petitioners to file their objections to the notices issued by the concerned authorities and then to file an appeal against the orders to be passed by the authorities if the petitioners felt aggrieved by the orders. He also contended that the matter could be brought up by way of reference to this Court u/s. 256 of the I. T. Act. In view of the, existence of the said alternative remedy this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under arc. 226 of the Constn. On behalf of the petitioners it was urged by Sri G. Sarangan that in similar cases the Commr had already taken a view which was adverse to the petitioners and that the Tribunal had reversed the decision of the Commr in an appeal filed against that order. In these circumstances it was argued that the existence of the alternative remedy was not an efficacious one. It is well settled that the existence of an alternative remedy does not in any way affect the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constn. It is for the Court to consider in each case having regard to the circumstances whether it should exercises

Click Here to Read the rest of this document