Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.SAM KOSHY, SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
Mandava Holdings Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Rep. by its Secretary – Respondent
ORDER :
Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J.
The present Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:
“1) issue a Writ, Order of Direction more particularly, in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, setting aside the Orders of the Lower Authorities as lacking in jurisdiction, being against the law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell;
2) set aside the consequent orders and proceedings for recovery of demand including the consequent penalties levied;
3) and to pass such other order…”
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a non- banking financial company registered as a Core Investment Company with the Reserve Bank of India under Registration No. N-09.00438. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 on 17.10.2016, admitting a loss of Rs.89,88,52,472/-, which was processed under Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), accepting the returned loss.
3. Further, a search and seizure operation was conducted on 04.01.2018 in the Group of M/s Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, which also covered the petitioner’s company. Pursuant thereto, a notice under Section 153 -A of the Act was issued on 22.01.2019 and in response to
Writ petitions are not maintainable when an effective statutory appellate remedy exists, as reaffirmed by case law.
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.
When there is an alternate remedy available, judicial prudence demands that court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provisions.
Writ petitions are not maintainable when an effective alternative remedy exists, emphasizing the principle of self-imposed limitations on High Court's jurisdiction.
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....
Writ petitions against statutory authority orders are typically not entertainable if adequate appeals exist under corresponding statutes without justifiable reasons for bypassing such remedies.
The court emphasized the importance of exhausting alternative remedies under the Income Tax Act before seeking writ jurisdiction for assessment disputes.
Judicial prudence requires courts to refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 when alternate statutory remedies are available.
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
