Bhag Chand Jangid Vs Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by Bhag Chand Jangid against the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Rajasthan, citing the petitioner’s failure to challenge the initial assessment order within the stipulated time frame. The court stated that it was not inclined to exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India given the availability of an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy.
The case originated from an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act on March 26, 2022. This order, pertaining to the reassessment of income, was not challenged by the petitioner at the time of its issuance. Subsequently, the assessing officer passed the final assessment order on March 9, 2023. It was only on March 31, 2023, that Bhag Chand Jangid filed the writ petition before the High Court, contesting the assessment proceedings.
The division bench of the Rajasthan High Court, after considering the timeline of events, observed that the petitioner had ample opportunity to challenge the order under Section 148A(d) immediately after it was passed. The failure to avail this remedy in a timely manner led the court to conclude that interfering at this stage, especially after the final assessment order had been issued, would be inappropriate.
The court emphasized the existence of a well-defined statutory mechanism for challenging assessment orders under the Income Tax Act, which typically involves filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and further appeals to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). This appellate process is designed to address grievances related to assessment orders and provides a comprehensive framework for dispute resolution within the tax administration.
Referring to the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies, the High Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is generally not invoked when an effective and adequate statutory remedy is available to the aggrieved party. This principle ensures that the hierarchical structure established by statutes for dispute resolution is respected and that the High Courts are not flooded with cases that can be appropriately addressed by lower authorities or tribunals.
While dismissing the writ petition, the Rajasthan High Court explicitly granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedies available under the law. This means that Bhag Chand Jangid retains the right to file an appeal against the assessment order before the appropriate appellate authorities. The court also clarified that all the issues raised in the writ petition were left open to be considered in the appeal, ensuring that the petitioner’s grievances could be fully addressed within the statutory framework.
This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the prescribed timelines for challenging orders under the Income Tax Act and the general reluctance of High Courts to entertain writ petitions when effective alternative remedies are available. It reinforces the principle that taxpayers should utilize the statutory channels provided for grievance redressal before approaching the High Court under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
