The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a re-assessment order on the ground that there was no violation of natural justice and the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained if there is “alternative efficacious remedy”.
Re-assessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee, Kedar Nath Babbar, on the ground that since complete material was not supplied, he was handicapped in submitting his proper objections. The petitioner has also stated that he was not given proper opportunity as the order was passed before the physical inspection of the record by the petitioner.
The division bench of Mr. Justice Manmohan and Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that the objections were duly disposed of by the Assessing officer vide order dated 30.10.2017. The order disposing of the objections is also detailed one. It was stated that notice dated 28.03.2017 was issued after obtaining sanction from the competent authority. The judgment cited by the assessee was also duly discussed and considered by the Assessing officer. Vide communication dated 06.11.2017, the petitioner was asked for certain enclosures referred to in the order dated 30.10.2017 and the same were duly supplied.
“It is the settled proposition that the writ jurisdiction of the court is to be exercised under certain well established principles. The courts should exercise their writ jurisdiction very sparingly if there is “alternative efficacious remedy”. The petitioner cannot be allowed to short circuit the procedure merely out of convenience. If a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation,” the bench said.
Dismissing the petition, it was held that “there was sufficient material on the record for reopening/re-assessment of the case of the petitioner for the concerned assessment year. This court is not making any comment on the merits of the case. The assessee will have complete right to put up his case before the assessing officer. We consider that there is no violation of the principles of the natural justice. The revenue department has followed the procedure prescribed by the law.”Subscribe Taxscan AdFree to view the Judgment