Zydus Healthcare Ltd. Vs ACIT (Sikkim High Court)
The Sikkim High Court considered a writ petition challenging the maintainability of a Writ Petition filed against an Order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act). The Respondent, represented by the Deputy Solicitor General of India, contended that the petitioner was barred from approaching the High Court without first exhausting statutory remedies. These remedies include filing an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A(1)(b) and, if aggrieved, further appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 253 of the IT Act. The Respondent argued that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) on March 19, 2022, relating to deemed income under Section 115JC, determination of book profit, and treatment of an excise duty refund as capital receipt, required statutory redressal, and failure to pursue such remedies rendered the writ petition premature. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Anshul Jain v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.
The petitioner argued that the IT Act does not provide a remedy specifically against orders under Section 148A(d) and that the reassessment was issued without jurisdiction, violating the limitation under Section 149. It was contended that the impugned amount of ₹22,99,92,702 was a deposit in the Personal Ledger Account and not a bank deposit, making the notice invalid. The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to challenge the order in the High Court, arguing that the matter involved pure questions of law and jurisdiction, and that prolonged statutory proceedings should not bar High Court intervention. Precedents cited included Red Chilli International Sales v. Income Tax Officer and Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. CG Power, establishing that writ jurisdiction may be exercised when proceedings are incomplete or purely legal issues are involved. The petitioner also referenced M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer, emphasizing that writs are maintainable where legal questions, rather than factual disputes, arise.
