Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Southern Ispat And Energy ... vs Union Of India on 8 July, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 248 of 2022
M/s Southern Ispat and Energy Limited, Through Its Director Smt. Anita
Bajoria, aged about 49 years, having its registered office at 14/448(2)
KSN ILLAM, Ground Floor, Near SBI Kunnathurmedu (PO), Palakkad,
Kerala - 678013.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Union of India Through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
(Department of Revenue) No. 137, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Through
Additional/Joint/ Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income
Tax/Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, North Block, New
Delhi-110001.
3. National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi Through
Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income
Tax/Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, North Block, New
Delhi-110001.
4. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Raipur, Office of
Commissioner of Income Tax, New C.R. Building, Civil Lines,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 4, Raipur, New C.R.
Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
6. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Raipur, Office of Income Tax Officer,
Raipur, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Assistant Solicitor
General.
For Respondents No. 2 to 6 : Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate along with
Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
08.07.2022
Heard Mr. Apurv Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General,
appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Amit Chaudhari along with Ms.
Naushina Afrin Ali, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 2 to 6.
2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 17.03.2022 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (T) No. 169 of 2021.
3. Perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge would go to show
that a contention was advanced by the petitioner that sanction under
Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, 'Act of 1961) had not
been accorded by the competent authority and that on making enquiries
through online, it became evident that the Document Identification
Number (DIN) mentioned in sanction order is not correct, and therefore,
there is no authenticity of the sanctioning order. If there is no sanction
order, the entire proceeding has to be construed to be illegal.
4. The submissions were countered by Mr. Amit Chaudhari contending
that DIN number is very much available in the sanctioning order and
digital signature is not required in an internal communication.
5. The learned Single Judge at paragraphs 6 and 7 observed as
follows:
"6. Challenge in this Writ Petition is primarily with respect
to initiation of proceeding under Section 148 is raised only
on the ground of non-issuance of sanction order under
Section 151 of the IT Act by competent authority. Perusal
of sanction granted by competent authority at Page-35
would reflect that it bears DIN and document number. This
document specifically bears name and designation of
authority according sanction/approval under Section 151 of
the IT Act. Hence, in view of submission of learned
counsel for the respective parties and considering
documents placed on record, wherein DIN is specifically
mentioned, I do not find any merit in submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner.
7. Pleading in reply, particularly in paragraph-4,
respondents have very categorically pleaded that for
obtaining approval under Section 151 of the IT Act, case
record was also forwarded to respondent-4. Submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner that sanction has been
accorded in a perfunctory manner is also not sustainable.
Undisputedly, final assessment order has already been
passed on 23.09.2021."
6. While recording as aforesaid, the learned Single Judge, at
paragraph 10, observed that writ petition can be entertained in
exceptional circumstances and the case presented by the petitioner was
not a case of that kind which required invocation of power under Article
226 of the Constitution of India and holding thus, relegated the petitioner
to avail alternative remedy available under Section 246(A) of the Act of
1961.
7. Mr. Goyal submits that the reasons for initiating proceeding under
Section 148 of the Act of 1961 was not furnished within a reasonable
period of time. In support of his contention, he relies on a decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Drivesharts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax
Officer & Others, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 72. He further submits that in
the instant case, reasons furnished do not contain the signature of the
issuing authority, date and time, and therefore, no reliance can be placed
on the same. It is further submitted by Mr. Goyal that the DIN number
showing in the sanction order being not a computer generated DIN
number, the same is not in accordance with the Central Board of Direct
Taxes (CBDT) Circular No. 19 of 2019 dated 14.08.2019.
8. Mr. Chaudhari submits that the arguments advanced by Mr. Goyal
have no merit and at any rate, the same can be urged before the
appellate authority. He submits that there is no illegality in the order of the
learned Single Judge relegating the petitioner to avail alternative remedy
available under Section 246(A) of the Act of 1961.
9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the materials on record.
10. We concur with the observation of the learned Single Judge that
present is not a case warranting exercise of powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has
adequate efficacious alternative remedy. We are, however, of the opinion
that if the learned Single Judge wanted the petitioner to avail alternative
remedy, findings as recorded in paragraphs 6 and 7 ought not to have
been recorded.
11. We are not inclined to examine in the present proceeding whether
the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge is correct or not, as we
have opined that the petitioner may avail alternative remedy.
12. In order not to cause any prejudice to the petitioner, we make it
clear that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge will not come
in the way of the petitioner urging the very same points as well as other
points before the appellate authority and the appellate authority, without
being influenced by any such findings recorded by the learned Single
Judge, in the event of filing of any appeal, shall decide the same in
accordance with law.
13. The appeal may be presented within a period of 45 days from today
and in the event of filing of appeal within this period, without going into
the aspect of limitation period, appeal shall be decided on merits.
14. The writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
