Green Valliey Industries Ltd v. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Dept & Ors

22.11.2022 ks WPA 23327 of 2022 sl. 39 Green Valliey Industries Ltd. Vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Dept & Ors. Mr.Abhrotosh Majumder, Ld. Sr. Adv.,Mr. Avra Mazumder,Ms. Megha Agarwal,Mr. Binayak Gupta,Mr. K. Roy … For the Petitioner.Mrs. Smita Das De … For the Respondents. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged theorder dated 28[th] September, 2022 under Section143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act,1961 on the ground that no sufficient opportunity ofhearing was given and on the ground that in theassessment order on some other issues also order hasbeen passed, which was not indicated in the impugnedshow-cause-notice. I have considered the submission of the parties andperused the relevant record including the impugnedassessment order under Section 143(3) of the Actwhich comprises of 55 pages and I am not inclined toentertained this writ petition for the following reasons: i)This case does not fall within those categoriesof cases where the impugned proceedingsinitiated and the notices issued from time toof cases where the impugned proceedingsinitiated and the notices issued from time to ii) iii) iv) time by the Authority having inherent lack ofjurisdiction; It is not a case as appears from record wherethere is a patent violation of principle ofnatural justice; It is not a case of the petitioner that theimpugned assessment order was passedwithout giving opportunity of hearing to thepetitioner rather it is the case of thepetitioner that no sufficient opportunity ofhearing was given to the petitioner. It isdifficult to define that what would besufficient opportunity for the petitioner bywhich he will be satisfied. Had it been a casethat no opportunity of hearing at all wasgiven to the petitioner, the matter would havebeen different. The impugned assessment order is a veryelaborate and detailed order was passedbased on material evidence and this writcourt in exercise of Constitutional writjurisdiction cannot re-appreciate thosematerial pieces of evidence and substitute thefindings of the Assessing Officer; v) In this writ petition there is no involvement ofConstitutional validity of any provisions ofany Act.Constitutional validity of any provisions ofany Act. vi) It is also not a case where the issues andgrounds raised by the petitioner in this writpetition cannot be adjudicated or decided bythe Appellate Authority or there is a specificbar in adjudication of those issues foradjudication by the Appellate Authority;grounds raised by the petitioner in this writpetition cannot be adjudicated or decided bythe Appellate Authority or there is a specificbar in adjudication of those issues foradjudication by the Appellate Authority; vii)The impugned order is an appealable orderunder the statute and though alternativeremedy although is not always a bar forentertaining a writ petition but at the sametime petitioner will have to establish that thesaid alternative remedy available under thestatute is not speedy and efficacious which ithas failed. In view of the discussion made above, I am notinclined to entertain this writ petition and, accordinglythis writ petition being WPA 23327 of 2022 isdismissed. However, dismissal of this writ petition will not be abar for the petitioner to raise all the issues raised inthis writ petition before Appellate Authority. ( Md. Nizamuddin, J. )