Shahid Mohammad vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur

Held

The Court held that while entertaining a writ petition is not an absolute bar even when an alternative remedy is available, it is a self-imposed restriction by High Courts. Considering the well-settled legal position and the fact that the plea of non-compliance with the principle of natural justice can be raised before the Appellate Authority, the Court found the writ petition not maintainable. The Court referred to its own decision in WPT No. 04 of 2024, which also considered provisions of the GST Act and held that a writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of an alternate remedy and disputed facts. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within 30 days from the receipt of the order. The Court directed that neither the appellate authority nor the respondents shall take a plea of limitation if the appeal is filed within the stipulated period, and the appellate authority should decide the appeal on its merits without being influenced by any observations made by this Court. The Court clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the case but only considered the rival submissions to decide the issue of the alternate remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, Shahid Mohammad, has challenged an assessment order dated 24.03.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144-B of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner contends that the order was passed without providing an opportunity for a hearing, with a prejudiced mind, and made irrelevant observations, resulting in an addition of Rs. 2,60,45,924/- to his total income. The petitioner also argues that the jurisdiction to issue notices lies with the National Faceless Assessment Centre, not the jurisdictional assessing officer, as per a notification dated 29.03.2022. Furthermore, statements of suppliers recorded behind the petitioner's back were not supplied despite requests, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner claims genuine purchases were wrongly treated as bogus transactions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court despite the availability of an alternative appellate remedy under Section 246(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the alleged flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice and the assertion of a predetermined and prejudiced mind by the Assessing Authority? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on principles of natural justice and the scope of writ jurisdiction). Petitioner's Arguments: - The writ petition is maintainable due to flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice and the Assessing Authority acting with a predetermined and prejudiced mind. - There is no bar to entertaining a writ petition even if an alternative appellate remedy is available. - The jurisdiction to issue notice lies with the National Faceless Assessment Centre, not the jurisdictional assessing officer. - Non-supply of supplier statements violates natural justice. - Genuine purchases were wrongly treated as bogus. Revenue's Arguments: - The writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 246(A) of the Income Tax Act before the Commissioner (Appeals). - Disputed facts are involved, which can be determined by the appellate authority, further rendering the writ petition not maintainable.