Case Law Details
Sanjay Singhal Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court)
In this case search and seizure was carried out way back in the year 2018 which culminated in passing the orders of assessment in the year 2021. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed appeal before the Appellate authority exercising their right of appeal. While the appeal is pending for last many months, the petitioners seek to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.
While the jurisdiction of this Court to examine the correctness and validity of the order cannot be disputed, at the same time, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction to entertain the dispute brought before us for the reason that there is not only an alternative remedy available to the petitioners under the law but that remedy has been invoked by the petitioners and the appeal is pending consideration.
The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the explanation to the provision contained in Section 132 may not allow the Appellate authority to dwell into the reasons on which the authority initiated the search and seizure proceedings, in our opinion, would not in any manner affect the jurisdiction of the Appellate authority to examine the legality and validity of the order of assessment and demands on its own merits and decide the same in accordance with law.
In view of above consideration, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the dispute raised in this petition.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Heard.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the search and seizure proceedings followed by the assessment carried out and the demand raised by the respondent-authorities.
The reason why the petitioners have rushed to this Court and filed this petition in the midst of pendency of their appeal against the order of assessment, precisely is based on the ground that the order which has been passed by the authorities are results of search and seizure carried out in blatant violation of the provisions contained in Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Learned counsel for the petitioners urged the Court to entertain the matter on the ground that the correctness and validity of the “reason to believe” may not be entertained by the Appellate authority and the petitioners filed appeal only to avoid objection with regard to limitation in the matter of challenge to order of assessment. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ajit Jain and Another [(2003) 181 CurTR 22:(2003) 260 ITR 80] and the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Ameeta Mehra Vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (INV) Unit [(2017) 295 CurTR 592: (2017) 395 ITR 185:(2017) 248 Taxman 308] as also decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Vs. Smt. Chitra Devi Soni [2007 0 Supreme(Raj) 2346], learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even though the order of assessment has been passed and appeal has been preferred by the petitioners, the Writ Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition and set at naught the assessment order and the demands which are results of illegal proceedings drawn and which are in blatant violations of the provisions of law.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, without commenting upon the merits of the claim of the petitioners in the matter including assessment and the demand notices, we find that the search and seizure was carried out way back in the year 2018 which culminated in passing the orders of assessment in the year 2021. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed appeal before the Appellate authority exercising their right of appeal. While the appeal is pending for last many months, the petitioners seek to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.
While the jurisdiction of this Court to examine the correctness and validity of the order cannot be disputed, at the same time, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction to entertain the dispute brought before us for the reason that there is not only an alternative remedy available to the petitioners under the law but that remedy has been invoked by the petitioners and the appeal is pending consideration.
The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the explanation to the provision contained in Section 132 may not allow the Appellate authority to dwell into the reasons on which the authority initiated the search and seizure proceedings, in our opinion, would not in any manner affect the jurisdiction of the Appellate authority to examine the legality and validity of the order of assessment and demands on its own merits and decide the same in accordance with law.
In view of above consideration, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the dispute raised in this petition. We leave it to the petitioners to pursue the appeal which is pending consideration before the Appellate authority.
Under the circumstances of the case, we are inclined to direct the Appellate authority to decide the petitioners’ appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The contention made by the petitioners before this Court including the challenge to the aspect of “reason to believe and satisfaction” shall be examined as permissible under the law.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
