B Muralidhar Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court)
In the case of B Muralidhar vs. DCIT, the petitioner challenged an order issued under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which held him liable for the tax dues of M/s A and G Project and Technologies. The petitioner argued that he was not a director of the company during the relevant period and, therefore, should not be held responsible. The respondent defended the order, stating that the petitioner had an alternative legal remedy available under Section 264 of the Act, which allows for revision of orders by higher tax authorities.
The Karnataka High Court, upon reviewing the matter, determined that Section 264 provides an effective remedy for the petitioner to challenge the order. As a result, the court dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to seek relief through revision before the appropriate authority. The court also directed that if the petitioner files a revision, the time spent pursuing the writ petition should be considered when assessing any delay in filing.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition is challenging the impugned order dated 03.2023 passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) by first respondent.
