Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, HARISH TANDON, CJ.
Samir Kundu, Son of Kashinath Kundu – Appellant
Versus
National Faceless Assessment Centre, Represented by Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer National Faceless Assessment Centre New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's arguments regarding natural justice. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. court's consideration of jurisdiction and procedure. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. writ jurisdiction contexts and assessment procedure. (Para 8) |
| 4. final decision to dismiss the writ petition. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.
Questioning legality, impropriety and justness of demand raised to the tune of Rs.1,23,78,764/- pertaining to the Assessment Year 2020-21 [relevant to Financial Year 2019-20] by way of assessment framed under Section 147 read with 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide Order dated 26.03.2025 of Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Purulia (Annexure-12), the petitioner has approached this Court insisting to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer(s):
"Under the aforesaid circumstances it is prayed therefore that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to:
a. Admit the Writ Application;
b. Issue rule nisi calling upon the Opposite Party No.2 as to why Order of Assessment dated 26.03.2025 vide Annexure-12 shall not be quashed being illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable in law, gross violation of principle
The court emphasized the importance of exhausting alternative remedies under the Income Tax Act before seeking writ jurisdiction for assessment disputes.
The existence of an alternative legal remedy bars the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by the High Court unless exceptional circumstances are established.
Mandatory service of notice under tax law is crucial to validate assessment; failure vitiates proceedings and necessitates fresh assessment.
When there is an alternate remedy available, judicial prudence demands that court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that writ petitions challenging assessment orders may not be maintainable if an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available, unless there i....
The jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue notices under the Income Tax Act is annulled if the action violates procedural norms established by recent legislative changes.
The authority of jurisdictional Assessing Officers to issue notices under Section 148 post-faceless scheme is invalid, as it contravenes procedural mandates outlined in the Income Tax Act.
The court affirmed that assessment proceedings initiated without jurisdiction under Section 148 post-Faceless Scheme are void, quashing all relevant notices and orders.
Writ petitions are not maintainable when an effective alternative remedy exists, emphasizing the principle of self-imposed limitations on High Court's jurisdiction.
The High Court will not entertain a writ petition if an effective alternative remedy exists, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
