High CourtsSingle Bench(2006) 04 RAJ CK 0072

Modern Insulators Ltd. vs Union of India

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 19 April 2006

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dalip Singh, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 8011 of 2005

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 332 words

Dalip Singh, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings u/s 147/148 of the income tax Act, 1961. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits that on the basis of the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, wherein it has been held that the assessee has an alternative remedy under the provisions of income tax Act, 1961 itself and notice cannot be quashed in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on the other hand, has pointed out that several other High Courts have taken a view that a writ petition would lie against a notice u/s 147/148 of the income tax Act, 1961 and the High Court has jurisdiction to quash the same.

3.

Be that as it may, without going into the details of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I feel that I am bound by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and I have already taken a view in accordance with the same in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 115/2006 decided on 8-2-2006 and dismissed the petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

4.

In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition the same same is hereby dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

5.

In view of the aforesaid, the stay application as well as the application for vacation/modification of stay order stands disposed of.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner may be allowed seven days time to approach the Division Bench and during that period the interim order dated 1-12-2005 may be allowed to continue. In the facts and circumstances, the prayer appears to be reasonable. The interim order dated 1-12-2005 shall remain in force for a period of seven days, as prayed.