Wp/60758/2012 Of Hubli Dharwad Urban v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
16 Aug 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · karhcdharwad
Parties
Wp/60758/2012 Of Hubli Dharwad Urban v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
16 Aug 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp/60758/2012 Of Hubli Dharwad Urban v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2012) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKACIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATHBD THIS THR 1 DAY OF AUGUST, 2012
BHRHRF
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRARBKDD
%WRIT PETITION No.60758/2012 (TIT)
BBRHITWH
Hubli Dharwad UrbanDevelopment Authority (HUDA),Navanagar, Hubli,Represented by Commissionerori. Radhakrishna Shanbhag.
_. PRHTITIONER,
(Shri Gangadhar J.M., Advocate)
ANT)
The Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Revenue Building,Navanagar, Hubli.
... RESPONDENT.
(Shri Y.V. Raviraj, Advocate)
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 ofthe Constitution of India praying to quash the impugnedorder at Annexure-A dated 28/11/2011 passed by therespondent.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing, thisday, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The present petition is filed by the Hubli-DharwarUrbanDevelopmentAuthority,agerievedby 6,2withdrawal of registration granted under Section 12AAof the Income Tax Act, 1961.
OoTherespondenthas.entered-442-.-1<2through counsel and has filed objections raising apreliminary objection that the writ petition would not bemaintainable, since there is an alternative remedyprovided under the Income Tax Act itself. Therefore,]without exhausting the remedy of appeal, the presentpetition being considered, would require this Court toarrive at findings of fact which is best left to theauthority under the Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner howeverwould submit that there are several instances where the
High Courts have entertained writ petitions in respect of
such matters and that the present petition beconsidered as well.
This is not a ground for encouraging suchpetitions when there is an alternative remedy available,especially in respect of a statutory body which shouldknow the law. Accordingly, the petition is disposed ofwithout prejudice to the claim of the petitioner. Thepetitioner having chosen to approach this Court, thetime taken before this Court may be excluded inconsidering any appeal that may be filed even nowbefore the concerned authority.
Sd/-JUDGE
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.