Case Law Details
HSBC Holding PLC Vs DCIT (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India not invocable as adequate and effective alternative remedy under Section 144C of the Act by way of filing objections before the Dispute Resolution panel available to the petitioner.
Facts- By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for quashing of Notice issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) – I, Hyderabad u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-I, International Taxation, Hyderabad u/s. 142(1) of the Act; and order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-I, International Taxation, Hyderabad.
Conclusion- Section 144C was inserted in the Act by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009. It provides for and deals with reference to Dispute Resolution Panel. Petitioner has an adequate and effective alternative remedy under Section 144C of the Act by way of filing objections before the Dispute Resolution panel.
Held that the present is not a fit case for invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and interdict the reassessment proceedings without allowing it to be proceeded as per procedure laid down under the law. However, since we have refused to entertain the writ petition on the point of statutory remedy available to the petitioner, we refrain from expressing any opinion on merit. Therefore, any observations made while coming to the aforesaid conclusion are only in the context of the present decision. Accordingly, all contentions are kept open.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
