Madras High Court
Abdul Rahman Marakayar vs The Government Of India on 7 June, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.9237 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.9237 of 2022
and
W.M.P.Nos.6598 and 6600 of 2022
Abdul Rahman Marakayar .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The Government of India,
Ministry of Finance,
Income Tax Department,
National Faceless Assessment Centre,
Delhi.
2.The Additional/Joint/Deputy/
Asssitant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Income Tax Officer,
National Faceless Assessment Centre,
Delhi. .. Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.9237 of 2022
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records Assessment order DIN
No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1042111051 (1) dated 30.03.2022 on the
file of the respondents herein and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Gunaseelanmuthiah
For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed to quash the Assessment
order in DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1042111051 (1) dated
30.03.2022 on the file of the respondents.
2.The petitioner is an assessee, who has challenged the assessment
order passed by the second respondent in DIN
No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1042111051 (1), dated 30.03.2022.
3.The contention of the petitioner is that the assessment has been
made for the year 2013-14 and he had wrongly submitted the assessment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.9237 of 2022
year as 2012-13. Since the assessment is bad in law, he prayed for
setting aside the assessment order.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Income Tax
submitted that the assessment order is for the year 2013-14. Initially, a
notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued on
31.03.2021. Thereafter, a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 08.02.2022, 20.02.2022 and
26.02.2022. The petitioner purchased the immovable property on
04.06.2012 and thereafter, the property sold on 06.09.2012. The
petitioner had suppressed the income of Rs.1,19,17,620. The Assessment
Officer, on considering the materials, found that the petitioner had
purposely not responded to the notice and participated in the
proceedings. Thereafter, the second respondent, following the best
judgment assessment procedure, had passed the assessment order. If at
all, the petitioner is aggrieved, he has to file an appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.9237 of 2022
5.In view of the same, this takes me to the alternate remedy plea.
The alternate remedy rule no doubt is not an absolute rule. In other
words, the alternate remedy rule is a rule of discretion. It is not
only a rule of discretion, it is a self restraint qua writ jurisdiction.
In the light of this obtaining legal position, Hon'ble Supreme Court
in a long line of judgments ie., Dunlop India case [Assistant
Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal Vs.
Dunlop India Ltd., and others reported in (1985) 1 SCC 260],
Satyawati Tandon [United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati
Tondon and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110] and
K.C.Mathew [Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore
and another Vs. Mathew K.C. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85] has
repeatedly held that when it comes to Revenue matters [ie., fiscal
Statutes] alternate remedy rule has to be applied with utmost
rigour. These three case laws mentioned here do not make a
exhaustive list, they are only illustrative and what I have mentioned
are oft quoted judgments for the proposition that alternate remedy
rule has to be applied with utmost rigour in fiscal Statutes.
6.In other words, the campaign of the writ petitioner qua the
impugned orders in the writ petition fail and the writ petition is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.9237 of 2022
dismissed albeit making it clear that if the writ petitioner chooses
the alternate remedy route and files statutory appeals, the same
will be considered (subject of course to limitation and pre-deposit
condition) by the appellate authority on its own merits and in
accordance with law. Consequently, the connected writ
miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
07.06.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vsg
Note:Issue Order Copy on 08.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.9237 of 2022
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vsg
W.P.(MD)No.9237 of 2022
and
W.M.P.Nos.6598 and 6600 of 2022
07.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
