Writ Not Entertained When Alternate Remedy Before CIT(A) Exists: Bombay HC

Anil Ramchandran Pillai Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court, in the case of Anil Ramchandran Pillai vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, dismissed a writ petition filed by a taxpayer, Anil Ramchandran Pillai, who was challenging several orders related to his income tax assessment. The court’s decision hinged on the principle of alternative remedy, a cornerstone of Indian jurisprudence concerning the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner, Anil Ramchandran Pillai, had filed a writ petition seeking to challenge a series of notices and orders issued by the tax authorities. These included a show cause notice dated April 12, 2021, an assessment order and demand notice, both dated April 20, 2021, and subsequent penalty orders from March 21, 2022, and January 30, 2022. The petitioner’s primary contention for invoking the court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction was that the tax authorities had violated the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the attachment of his bank account by the tax authorities, following a stay application order directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 1.25 Crores, provided a new and urgent cause of action, justifying the direct approach to the High Court.

Conversely, the learned counsel for the Revenue, representing the National Faceless Assessment Centre, raised a preliminary and fundamental objection to the petition’s maintainability. The Revenue’s argument was twofold. Firstly, they highlighted that the petitioner had already initiated the statutory appellate process by filing appeals against the impugned assessment and penalty orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or CIT(A). By availing this alternate remedy, the petitioner was, in the Revenue’s view, precluded from simultaneously seeking relief through a writ petition. Secondly, the Revenue contended that the petition was marred by significant delay and laches, noting that the petitioner had approached the court several years after the initial assessment order was passed. The Revenue thus prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the appeals he had already filed.

The Bombay High Court, after carefully considering the submissions from both sides, found considerable merit in the preliminary objection raised by the Revenue. The court’s judgment meticulously articulated the well-established legal position that the remedy of a writ under Article 226 is extraordinary, equitable, and entirely discretionary. The court observed that it could not be “oblivious to the conduct of the party invoking that remedy.” The judicial pronouncement emphasized that when a party possesses multiple remedies for the same cause of action, they are expected to choose one and cannot be permitted to engage in a “multiplicity of action.” The court stated that once the petitioner had consciously chosen to file appeals before the CIT(A) and availed of that alternative remedy, it was incumbent upon him to prosecute those appeals to their logical conclusion.

The court explicitly declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction, stating that the case did not present a fit occasion for such intervention. It thus dismissed the writ petition. However, a crucial and consequential part of the judgment was the court’s compassionate consideration of the petitioner’s predicament regarding the attached bank account. Despite dismissing the petition, the court acknowledged the “grave prejudice” being caused to the petitioner. To address this, the court issued a specific and binding direction to the CIT(A). It mandated that the appellate authority should dispose of all the pending appeals filed by the petitioner—from both the assessment order and the penalty orders—as “expeditiously as possible,” and in any event, within a strict timeline of eight weeks from the date the court’s order was uploaded to the High Court Website.

To ensure strict compliance with its directive, the court, in a rather unusual but prudent step, placed the writ petition back on its board for a compliance report. The matter was scheduled to be listed on November 4, 2025, for the purpose of ensuring that the CIT(A) had acted in accordance with the court’s directions. This final act by the court demonstrates a balanced approach: it upheld the legal principle of alternative remedy while simultaneously ensuring that the taxpayer received a timely and fair hearing through the appropriate appellate forum, thereby providing a practical solution to the prejudice caused by the bank attachment.

Judicial Precedents

The judgment, while not citing a specific prior case by name, relies on the long-established judicial precedent and principle that a High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary and discretionary power. This power is not to be exercised when a petitioner has a statutory, effective, and adequate alternative remedy available, such as an appeal to an appellate tribunal or authority. The core principle is to prevent the overburdening of constitutional courts with matters that can be resolved through existing legal mechanisms. The court’s holding reinforces this well-founded doctrine, stating that a party cannot be permitted to indulge in “multiplicity of action” by simultaneously pursuing a statutory appeal and a constitutional writ petition for the same cause.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT

1. The above Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 12^th April, 2021, the impugned Assessment Order dated 20^th April, 2021 (passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B), the impugned Demand Notice dated 20^th April, 2021 issued under Section 156 as well as the impugned Penalty Order dated 21^st March, 2022 and 30^th January, 2022 [passed under Section 270A, 272A(1)(d)] of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue took a Preliminary Objection to the entertainability of the above Writ Petition. He submitted that being aggrieved by the impugned Assessment Order, the Petitioner has already preferred an Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”], and which is pending. He further submitted that the Petitioner has also preferred an Appeal from the Penalty Order dated 21^stMarch, 2022. Once the Petitioner has availed of the alternate remedy, the above Petition ought not to be entertained and the Petitioner be directed to prosecute the Appeals filed by him, was the submission. The learned counsel for the Revenue also submitted that the above Petition is squarely hit by latches and delay as the Petitioner has approached this Court after a lapse of four years from the passing the impugned assement order dated 20^th April, 2021. For all these reasons, he submitted that the Writ Petition be dismissed.

3. On the Preliminary Objection, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that though it is true that the Petitioner has preferred the abovementioned Appeals before CIT(A), since this is a case of breach of the principles of natural justice, the Writ Petition can be entertained. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that after the order of Penalty was passed, the Petitioner approached the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and filed another Stay Application on 27^thJune, 2025 That Stay Application was disposed of by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer vide his order dated 26^thJuly, 2025 directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1.25 Crores (20% of the sum of Rs.6,26,95,884/-) as a condition precedent for the stay. This amount was to be deposited by 4^thAugust, 2025. Since, this amount was not deposited, the Bank Account of the Petitioner is attached and this also gives another cause of action to the Petitioner to approach this Court. He, accordingly, submitted that there is no delay on the part of the Petitioner in filing the above Writ Petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the Preliminary Objection. We find considerable force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue. It is not in dispute that the impugned Assessment Order was passed on 20^thApril, 2021 and the impugned Demand Notice [issued under Section 156] is also dated 20^thApril, 2021. Even the impugned Penalty Order passed under Section 270A is dated 21^st March, 2022. It is also not in dispute that the impugned Assessment Order as well as the impugned Penalty Order have been challenged by the Petitioner before CIT(A). In these circumstances, we find that this is not a fit case where this Court ought to exercise its extraordinary, equitable, and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We say this because it is a well established position that the remedy of a Writ under Article 226 is extraordinary and discretionary, and this Court cannot be oblivious to the conduct of the party invoking that remedy. When a party has several remedies for the same cause of action, he must select his remedy and cannot be permitted to indulge in multiplicity of action. The exercise of discretion to issue a Writ, is a matter of granting equitable relief. Once the Petitioner has already filed Appeals before CIT(A) and availed of the alternate remedy, we are of the opinion that the petitioner ought to prosecute his appeals filed before the CIT(A). We, therefore, decline to entertain the above Writ Petition and dismiss the same.

5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Bank Account of the Petitioner has been attached by the Income Tax Authorities and is causing grave prejudice to the Petitioner. He, therefore, requested that directions be passed to decide the Appeals filed by the Petitioner in a time bound manner. Considering these facts and circumstances, we direct that the CIT(A) shall dispose of the Appeals filed by the Petitioner, not only from the impugned Assessment Order dated 20^thApril, 2021 but also from Penalty Orders dated 21^stMarch, 2022 and 30^th January, 2022, as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, within a period of eight weeks from the date of uploading of this order on the High Court Website.

6. The above Writ Petition is dismissed with the aforesaid directions.

7. Though, the Writ Petition is dismissed, to ensure that the directions given to the CIT(A) are strictly followed, we place the above Writ Petition on board for reporting the compliance, on 4^thNovember, 2025.

8. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.