State Of Rajasthan v. The Deputycommissioner Of Income Tax (Cib

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANAT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E RS.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5399/2011S.B. Civil Misc. stay Application No.4896/2011 (State of Rajasthan Versus The DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax (CIB)) :: 13[th] July, 2011 Date of Order HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Nalin G. Narayan, Deputy Government Counselfor the State of Rajasthan BY THE COURT: By way of the instant writ petition,the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 10[th] August, 2010,whereby the Director of Income Tax (CIB)Rajasthan, Jaipur imposed a penalty of 20,200/-rupees on the petitioner. Having heard the learned counsel forthe petitioner and carefully perused theimpugned order, it is noticed that therespondent issued a notice to the petitionerunder Section 271FA on 23.2.2010 requiring himto attend his office on 11.3.2010 and showcause as to why the penalty under Section 271FA should not have been imposed upon him forfailure to file the annual information returnswithin the prescribed time. Pursuant to thisnotice, a letter was sent stating that annualreturns had already been submitted, but on verification of the facts, it was found thatthe annual information returns was filed withdelay of 202 days. The explanation furnished bythe Sub-Registrar in this regard was not foundjustifiable and thus, it was not accepted. Inthe absence of any satisfactory explanation forlate filing of the annual information return,the respondent imposed a penalty of 20,200/- atthe rate of 100 per day, during which thedefault continued. I do not find any illegality orperversity in the impugned order. The saidorder is found to be just and in accordancewith the provisions of Section 271 FA of IncomeTax Act. No fundamental right or personal rightof the petitioner is found to have beeninfringed. Otherwise too, the petitioner hasgot efficacious alternate legal remedy tochallenge the said order, but the same is notfound to have been filed by him. The petitionercannot be permitted to invoke the extraordinaryjurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India and thus, the writpetition being totally bereft of any meritdeserves to be dismissed in limine. In view of above, the writ petitionfails and the same stands dismissed accordingly. Consequent upon the dismissal of writpetition, the stay application, filedtherewith, does not survive and that alsostands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. DK/-