S.148A Income Tax Act | Writ Court Can't Interfere Where Statutory Authority Follows Procedure & Proceedings Have Not Yet Concluded: P&H High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a writ petition in the nature of certiorari for quashing notice issued to the petitioner under Sections 148A (b) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2018-19, held that no interference is warranted since the procedure contemplated in 1961 Act was followed and the authority acted within its jurisdiction. Admittedly in the present case the procedure as contemplated of the 1961 Act was followed and the authority acted within jurisdiction though petitioner alleges that it erred as the petitioner claims that the order passed under section 148A (d) warrants interference owing to error of fact. The primary issue for consideration in the case was whether at the stage of notice, the writ Court should venture into the merits of the controversy when AO is yet to frame assessment/reassemment in discharge of statutory duty casted upon him under Section 147 of the Act? The bench comprising Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa and Justice Pankaj Jain placed reliance on Gian Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and others wherein it was held that where the proceedings have not even been concluded by the statutory authority, the writ Court should prohibit itself from interfering at such a pre-mature stage. The aforesaid question already stands answered by this Court in CWP No.9142 of 2022 decided vide order dated 2.6.2022 titled as Gian Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and others holding that :- "Thus, the consistent view is that where the proceedings have not even been concluded by the statutory authority, the writ Court should not interfere at such a pre-mature stage. Moreover it is not a case where from bare reading of notice it can be axiomatically held that the authority has clutched upon the jurisdiction not vested in it. By now it is well settled that there is vexed distinction between jurisdictional error and error of law/fact within jurisdiction. For rectification of errors statutory remedy has been provided. In the light of aforesaid settled proposition of law, we find that there is no reason to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India at this intermediate stage when the proceedings initiated are yet to be concluded by a statutory authority. Hence, the instant writ petition stands dismissed." The validity of Gian Casting case was further upheld in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 10762 of 2022 titled as 'Gian Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and others'. Court further noted that the procedure contemplated in 1961 Act is followed in the instant case and the authority acted within jurisdiction even though petitioner alleges that it erred and the order passed under section 148A (d) warrants interference of this court owing to error of fact. Keeping in view aforesaid facts and the settled proposition of law, the court found no reason to interfere at this stage. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed.Case Title: Midland Microfin Ltd. Versus Union of India and othersCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 194 Click Here To Read/Download Order

S.148A Income Tax Act | Writ Court Can't Interfere Where Statutory Authority Follows Procedure & Proceedings Have Not Yet Concluded: P&H High Court

Drishti Yadav

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

S.148A Income Tax Act | Writ Court Can't Interfere Where Statutory Authority Follows Procedure & Proceedings Have Not Yet Concluded: P&H High Court

Drishti Yadav

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers