Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 62 (0.32 seconds)Section 119 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 43A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 143 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bakelite Hylam Ltd. on 25 April, 1995
80. Thus, it is clear that ordinarily when an alternative remedy is provided, the High Court should not exercise jurisdiction but it does not mean that when the order passed by the authority is bad and illegal, Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction. The remedy must not be only alternative but it must be efficacious also. In the instant case, the AO has not passed the order independently as pointed out earlier, but in fact, jurisdiction is exercised by CBDT by issuing circular and therefore, the order is without jurisdiction. Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. (supra) held that the AO rightly refunded the amount. We are in agreement with the views expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and, therefore, also, it would amount to unnecessary harassment if the assessee is asked to stand in queue. It is also required to be noted that the appeal in the instant case would not be a proper remedy. The appeal would lie against the real order and not purported orders and, therefore, the appellate remedy could not come in the way of the petitioner as it could not be said to have been provided for such purported orders which are void in law and therefore, it would not be obligatory for the petitioner to exhaust the remedy of appeal to cure the defect. Therefore, in our opinion, this Court must exercise the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs Union Of India And Anr. on 14 December, 1973
41. Mr. Naik submitted that all these cases are not applicable to the facts of the instant case particularly in the case of Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India (supra) as the petitioners have not only challenged the assessment order but also challenged the provisions of trade notice/circular whereas in this case the petitioner has challenged only the assessment order and has not challenged the circular. Therefore, these decisions are not applicable to the facts of the instant case.