Baywest Power & Energy Private Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxcompany Circle I (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM Baywest Power & Energy Private Ltd.,433, 9[th] Cross, 8[th] Main RoadII Stage, RMV Extention II, MIGBangalore – 560 094Rep. by its Senior ManagerSri.A.Sathyanathan.. Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCompany Circle I (2)121, Nungambakkam High RoadChennai – 600 034.. Respondent Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari tocall for the records in PA/G.I.R No.BX4-226/AAACB3113G dated17.03.2006 for the Assessment Year 2001-02 of the respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar for M/s. Mallika Srinivasan, For Respondent : Mr.Hema Muralikrishnan Standing counsel Heard Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned counsel for therespondent. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition has challengedthe order of assessment passed by the respondent dated17.03.2006 for the Assessment years 2001-02. The petitionerhas raised various contentions challenging the order ofassessment. Similar prayer was made by the petitioner withregard to the Assessment Orders passed for the AssessmentYears 1999-2000 and 2000-01 dated 30.03.2004 by filinghttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/W.P.Nos.12760 and 12761 of 2004. The said writ petitions were dismissed by order dated 12.03.2007. The operative portion ofthe said order reads as follows: “11.We agree with the submissions made by thelearned standing counsel appearing for therespondent herein. A perusal of the orders impugnedherein show that the issues raised in the writpetitions were taken before the respondent too, whohad passed the orders after considering the same.Since the issue involved in the writ petitionsrequired investigation into the facts, including theissue on jurisdiction, we do not find anyextraordinary circumstance to go into the merits.It is a matter for the statutory authorities toconsider if and when an appeal is preferred. 12. Admittedly, the assessee has an alternativeremedy, and it is not denied that it is anefficacies remedy. In a recent decision reported in279 ITR 342 (Dr.K.NEDUNCHEZHIAN VS. DEPUTY CIT), aDivision Bench of this Court, affirmed the decisionreported in 274 ITR 37 (Dr.K.NEDUNCHEZHIAN VS.DEPUTY CIT) and following the decision of the ApexCourt, held that when there is an alternativeremedy, ordinarily, writ jurisdiction under Article226 of the Constitution of India should not beinvoked and that the principle applies with greaterforce to this proceedings. 13.Considering the issues involved and applyingthe decision cited above, we dismiss the writpetitions. It is open to the assessee/petitioner toprefer appeal, if they deem fit, within a period ofthirty days from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. No costs. Consequently, the connectedM.P.Nos.14866 and 14867 of 2004 and W.V.M.P.No.572of 2005 are closed.” 3. The above referred decision is made in the Assessee'sown case and identical grounds have been raised in thepresent writ petition as well. Therefore, the decision in theearlier writ petition would bind the Assessee as the groundsare more or less identical in the instant case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is opento the assessee / petitioner to prefer an appeal if they deemit appropriate, within a period of 30 days from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, theconnected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// To The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCompany Circle I (2)121, Nungambakkam High RoadChennai – 600 034 + 1 cc to M/s. Mallika Srinivasan, Advocate SR.55357 + 1 cc to Ms. Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate SR.55388 W.P.No.15914 of 2006 &W.P.M.P.No.15716 of 2006RJ(CO)EU 28.08.17