Rajasthan High Court
M/S Shiv Vegpro Private Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 8 November, 2021
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4065/2021
M/s Shiv Vegpro Private Limited, Through Its Director Shri
Sandeep Kumar Saboo S/o Late Shri Sudarshan Saboo, Aged 37
Years, 343-A, Saboo Sadan, Talwandi, Kota.
----Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Denik
Navjyoti Building, Cad Circle, Kota.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
08/11/2021
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
the order dated 08.01.2021 as well as recovery notice dated
17.03.2020.
Admittedly, the petitioner is having alternative statutory
remedy of appeal against the impugned order as well as recovery
notice.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Genpact India
Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax &
Anr. (Civil Appeal No.8945 of 2019) decided on 22.11.2019
where in para No.15, it has been held as under:-
"15. We now turn to the question whether
the High Court was justified in refusing to
entertain the writ petition because of
availability of adequate appellate remedy.
The law on the point is very clear and was
summarised in Commissioner of Income Tax
(Downloaded on 12/11/2021 at 09:12:08 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-4065/2021]
and others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal2 as
under:-
"11. Before discussing the fact
proposition, we would notice the
principle of law as laid down by this
Court. It is settled law that non-
entertainment of petitions under writ
jurisdiction by the High Court when
an efficacious alternative remedy is
available is a rule of self-imposed
limitation. It is essentially a rule of
policy, convenience and discretion
rather than a rule of law.
Undoubtedly, it is within the
discretion of the High Court to grant
relief under Article 226 despite the
existence of an alternative remedy.
However, the High Court must not
interfere if there is an adequate
efficacious alternative remedy
available to the petitioner and he has
approached the High Court without
availing the same unless he has
made out an exceptional case
warranting such interference or there
exist sufficient grounds to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226. (See State of U.P. v.
Mohd. Nooh, Titaghur Paper Mills Co.
Ltd. v. State of Orissa, Harbanslal
Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.5 and
State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja
Cement Ltd.)
12. The Constitution Benches of this
Court in K.S. Rashid and Son v.
Income Tax Investigation
Commission, Sangram Singh v.
Election Tribunal, Union of India v.
T.R. Varma, State of U.P. v. Mohd.
Nooh and K.S. Venkataraman and Co.
(P) Ltd. v. State of Madras have held
that though Article 226 confers very
wide powers in the matter of issuing
writs on the High Court, the remedy
of writ is absolutely discretionary in
character. If the High Court is
satisfied that the aggrieved party can
have an adequate or suitable relief
elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise
its jurisdiction. The Court, in
extraordinary circumstances, may
exercise the power if it comes to the
conclusion that there has been a
breach of the principles of natural
justice or the procedure required for
(Downloaded on 12/11/2021 at 09:12:08 PM)
(3 of 4) [CW-4065/2021]
decision has not been adopted. [See
N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja
Nainar, Municipal Council, Khurai v.
Kamal Kumar, Siliguri Municipality v.
Amalendu Das, S.T. Muthusami v. K.
Natarajan , Rajasthan SRTC v.
Krishna Kant, Kerala SEB v. Kurien E.
Kalathil, A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v.
S. Chellappan, L.L. Sudhakar Reddy
v. State of A.P., Shri Sant Sadguru
Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj)
Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v.
State of Maharashtra, Pratap Singh v.
State of Haryana and GKN
Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO]
...
15. Thus, while it can be said that
this Court has recognised some
exceptions to the rule of alternative
remedy i.e. where the statutory
authority has not acted in accordance
with the provisions of the enactment
in question, or in defiance of the
fundamental principles of judicial
procedure, or has resorted to invoke
the provisions which are repealed, or
when an order has been passed in
total violation of the principles of
natural justice, the proposition laid
down in Thansingh Nathmal case,
Titaghur Paper Mills case and other
similar judgments that the High Court
will not entertain a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution if an
effective alternative remedy is
available to the aggrieved person or
the statute under which the action
complained of has been taken itself
contains a mechanism for redressal
of grievance still holds the field.
Therefore, when a statutory forum is
created by law for redressal of
grievances, a writ petition should not
be entertained ignoring the statutory
dispensation."
Recently, in Authorised Officer, State Bank of
Travancore & Anr. v. Mathew K.C., the
principles laid down in Chhabil Dass Agarwal
were reiterated as under:
"The discretionary jurisdiction under
Article 226 is not absolute but has to
be exercised judiciously in the given
facts of a case and in accordance
with law. The normal rule is that a
writ petition under Article 226 of the
(4 of 4) [CW-4065/2021]
Constitution ought not to be
entertained if alternate statutory
remedies are available, except in
cases falling within the well-defined
exceptions as observed in CIT v.
Chhabil Dass Agarwal ..."
In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed as
the petitioner is having alternative statutory remedy of appeal.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
JYOTI /108
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
