Senthilkumar Vs Joint/Deputy/ACIT (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that the existence of an alternative remedy precludes the petitioner from approaching this Court through a writ petition unless there is an exceptional circumstance. Accordingly, writ disposed and court directed petitioner to await the outcome of appeal pending before competent authority.
Facts- The petitioner was selected for re-assessment based on the risk management strategy, and the assessment process was initiated by issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the financial year 2017-2018 [Assessment year 2018-19]. The impugned assessment order has resulted in a total tax liability of Rs.2,13,88,002/- being recovered from the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed challenging the assessment order passed by the first respondent for the assessment year 2018-2019, dated 22.03.2024.
Conclusion- Held that as per the established legal principles, when an appeal is pending before a competent authority, the petitioner must await for the outcome of that appeal. It is well settled that the existence of an alternative remedy precludes the petitioner from approaching this Court through a writ petition unless there is an exceptional circumstance, which has not been demonstrated in the present case. Further, this Court reaffirms the judicial discipline that discourages the maintenance of parallel proceedings in writ jurisdiction when a statutory remedy has been availed. The appellate authority is the appropriate forum to resolve the issues raised by the petitioner and the petitioner should await the decision of the first respondent in the appeal proceedings.
