Vikaram Stoves And Fabricators Thr Its v. The Government Of India. Thr The Income Tax Officer And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD959 WRIT PETITION NO. 12177 OF 2025 Vikaram Stoves And Fabricators Thr Its Proprietor V.s. Kale VERSUS The Government Of India. Thr The Income Tax Officer And Others ... Mr. Jagdish G. Toshniwal & Mr. P. N. Kanani, Advocate for the PetitionerMr. Nandkishor Yadav, Advocate for Respondent No.1/UOI ... AND960 WRIT PETITION NO. 12178 OF 2025 Vikram Stoves And Fabricators Thr Its Proprietor V.s. Kale VERSUS The Government Of India. And Others … Mr. Jagdish G. Toshniwal & Mr. P. N. Kanani, Advocate for the PetitionerMr. N. T. Bhagat, Advocate for Respondent No.1/UOI ... AND 961 WRIT PETITION NO. 12179 OF 2025 Vikram Stoves And Fabricators Thr Its Proprietor V.s. KaleVERSUS The Govt. Of India And Others ... Mr. Jagdish G. Toshniwal & Mr. P. N. Kanani, Advocate for the PetitionerMr.Rajendra Sanap, Advocate for Respondent No.1/UOI . … AND 962 WRIT PETITION NO. 12180 OF 2025 Vikram Stoves And Fabricators Thr Its Proprietor V.s. KaleVERSUS The Government Of India And Others ... Mr. Jagdish G. Toshniwal & Mr. P. N. Kanani, Advocate for the PetitionerMr.Aummaheshwari Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No.1/UOI . … AND 963 WRIT PETITION NO. 12181 OF 2025 Vikram Stoves And Fabricators Thr Its Proprietor V.s. KaleVERSUS The Government Of India And Others Mr. Jagdish G. Toshniwal & Mr. P. N. Kanani, Advocate for the PetitionerMr. Nandkishor Yadav, Advocate for Respondent No.1/UOI … AND 964 WRIT PETITION NO. 12190 OF 2025 Vikaram Stoves And Fabricators Thr Its Proprietor V.s. Kale VERSUS The Government Of India And Others ... Mr. Jagdish G. Toshniwal & Mr. P. N. Kanani, Advocate for the PetitionerMr. N. T. Bhagat, Advocate for Respondent No.1/UOI. ... CORAM :R. G. AVACHAT AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATED:OCTOBER 03, 2025 P.C.: 1.Heard. 2.Challenge in these Writ Petitions is to the orders refusing to grantrectification of the Assessment Orders passed by Respondent No.4-Income Tax Officer by virtue of Section 246A(1)(c) of the Income TaxAct. The said order is appealable as such the petitioners have equallyefficacious remedy. 3.Learned Advocate for Respondents/UOI have strongly objected tothe same. 4.The Apex Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra & Ors. V.Greatship (India) Limited, (2022) AIR SC 4408 has in so many words observed that when equally efficacious remedy is available in taxationmatter, the High Court shall not entertain the Writ Petitions. 5.In view of the above, we direct the petitioner to avail theappropriate remedy, if so advised. The time spent in pursuing thesepetitions shall be excluded from computing the period of limitationrequired for preferring Appeal under Section Section246A(1)(c) of theIncome Tax Act. 6.Writ Petitions disposed of accordingly. [ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.] [R. G. AVACHAT, J.]