The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of alternative and efficacious remedies in the context of exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

Ravi V. Malimath, J. - Aggrieved by the order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, in dismissing writ petition No. 5914 of 2018, the writ petitioner is in appeal.

2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a Malaysian company incorporated under the laws of Malaysia and has its registered office in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. It does not have any office or presence in India. Respondent no. 2-Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax for the assessment year 2009-10 raised a demand dated 18.12.2017 for a sum of Rs. 20,84,448/- against the petitioner-company. The reassessment order was sought to be challenged before the learned Single Judge of this Court on the ground that the alleged breach of principles of natural justice by the respondent-assessing authority namely, non-service of the statutory notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (the Act for short) and non-grant of adequate opportunity to raise objections. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner has not received any notice under Section 147/148 of the Act at the Malaysian address. The first notice received by them is dated 01.12.2017 and the same was received by them on 08.12.2017. Immediately thereafter, a communication was sent by Email to respondent no. 2-Deputy Commissioner on 15.12.2017 asking for time. Thereafter, three notices were issued under Section 142(1) of the Act requiring attendance of the Company before the tax authorities. It would appear that the petitioner-Company did not respond to any of the communications. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was of the view that, there is no reason to disbelieve that despite categorical averments in the impugned order that right from the notice dated 29.03.2016, at least three more notices were served on the petitioner-company, the petitioner-company was not aware of the pending proceedings.

3. The learned Single Judge also noticed that in terms of the letter dated 28.12.2017 vide Annexure-D to the writ petition, the same would indicate the attitude and non-cooperation of the petitioner-company in the tax proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department. That if a foreign company was ignorant of even the basic requirements of obtaining a PAN number from the Income Tax Department, it has to blame itself rather than the respondent-authorities. That the proceedings having been initiated from the month of March 2016 followed by various notices on 29.03.2016, 02.06.2017, 12.07.2017, 11.10.2017 and 16.10.2017 followed by letter dated 07.11.2017 which would all indicate that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. That the petitioner has deliberately avoided to approach the concerned authorities. Notwithstanding the same, in view of the fact that the assessee has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal, the learned Single Judge was of the view that exercise of a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was uncalled for. Hence, the writ petition was dismissed.

4. Sri Tushar Jarwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants counsel contends that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is incorrect. He relies on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-Tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta and another reported in (1961) 41 ITR 191 . He contends that in terms of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, since the question of jurisdiction has been questioned, the writ court should have entertained this plea. That the plea of the petitioner is that the authorities do not have any jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, the said judgment covers the issue on hand. We have considered the judgment at length. We asked a question to the appellant as to why the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous in view of the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy. His reliance placed on Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. case