Supreme Court Dismissed Writ Petition: Statutory Remedy Must Be Exhausted

 Supreme Court Dismissed Writ Petition: Statutory Remedy Must Be Exhausted

Summary in Key Points:

• Issue: Was the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition justified, given the availability of a statutory alternative remedy of appeal?
• Facts: The respondent-department passed an order under Section 73 against the petitioner-assessee. Instead of appealing, the petitioner filed a writ petition, which was dismissed because of the available alternative remedy under Section 107. The assessee then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
• Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the High Court’s order, as there was no jurisdictional challenge. However, the Supreme Court clarified that if the assessee were to file an appeal under Section 107 and a limitation issue arose, the Appellate Authority should consider the time spent by the assessee pursuing remedies before the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Important Note: This decision reinforces the principle that when a statutory alternative remedy is available, it should be exhausted before approaching the High Court or the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s observation regarding limitation acknowledges the time spent by the assessee in pursuing alternative (and ultimately unsuccessful) remedies, offering a degree of protection against being penalized for seeking judicial intervention prematurely. It underscores the hierarchical structure of legal remedies and the importance of following the prescribed channels.