Anandkumar Dhanraj Rathod Vs Union of India and ors. (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court recently addressed a writ petition in Anandkumar Dhanraj Rathod vs. Union of India & Ors., challenging an assessment order under Sections 143(3) and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2021–2022. The petitioner claimed a breach of natural justice, alleging insufficient notice, discrepancies between the show cause notice and the final order, and the denial of a request for a personal hearing via video conferencing. However, the court emphasized that the petitioner had an alternate remedy through statutory appeal and declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petitioner relied on Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks (1999) to argue against the exhaustion of alternate remedies, asserting that the breach of natural justice justified direct intervention by the High Court. However, the court observed that the petitioner was served with adequate notice and given sufficient time to respond. Notably, the final assessment included unaccounted sales, which the petitioner had the opportunity to address but failed to establish any prejudice due to alleged short notice or procedural lapses. The court also rejected reliance on Cheftalk Food & Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, noting that in this case, the petitioner had several days to respond, unlike the less-than-24-hour notice in Cheftalk.
