High CourtsDivision Bench(1990) 08 DEL CK 0060

PURAN MAL vs UNION OF INDIA and Others

Delhi High Court · Decided on 30 August 1990 · Citation: (1991) 92 CTR 34

HON’BLE JUDGES
B. N. Kirpal, J
CASE NUMBER
CWP No. 2183 of 1990

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

2 paragraphs · 349 words

B. N. KIRPAL, J. :

This is a wholly frivolous and unnecessary petition which has been filed which has resulted in our having to unnecessarily spend precious time. The facts are that the WTO included in the hands of the petitioners wealth of Rs. 4,06,389. The appeal was filed to the Assistant Commissioner which was dismissed. Further appeal to the Tribunal was dismissed. The petitioner then filed a petition under s. 27(1) of the WT Act for reference of certain questions of law to this Court. That petition was dismissed. The petitioner has filed a petition under s. 27(3) of the said Act, which is yet to come up for hearing before this Court. Despite this alternative remedy having been availed of by the petitioner and despite the fact that petition under s. 27(3) is pending, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the same orders which are sought to be impugned on alleged questions of law in the proceedings under the WT Act. We see no justification for this course to have adopted. Learned counsel has relied upon Raza Textiles Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rampur, where the Supreme Court has said that if there is jurisdictional infirmity, writ petition maintainable. That case is clearly distinguishable. In the present case there is no jurisdictional infirmity and moreover, what is more important, the petitioner has already availed of the alternative remedy by filing reference application which is still pending in this Court. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take resort to collateral proceedings under Art. 226 at the same time. Furthermore, the Income Tax Tribunal in arriving at its decision, has followed its conclusion is an appeal arising out of the Income Tax assessment. Further reference petitions to the Tribunal and to this Court under s. 256 (2) have already been dismissed. The order with regard to the Income Tax assessment, as far as this court is concerned, has already become final. In spite of this, to file the present writ petition is, to say the least, irresponsible. Dismissed.