Karnataka H.C : The appellants were not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to cancel the order made by the Tribunal as an alternate remedy of appeal provided under s. 260A

High Court Of Karnataka

L. Sohanraj & Ors. vs. DCIT & Anr.

Section 260A, Art. 226, Art. 227

Asst. Year 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-913, 1993-94

Ashok Bhan, Actg. C.J. & R. Gururajan, J.

Writ Appeal Nos. 3852 to 55 of 2000

3rd August, 2000

Counsel Appeared : Madhusudan R. Naik, for the Petitioners : M.V. Seshachala, for the Respondents

JUDGMENT

ASHOK BHAN, ACTG. C.J. :

Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions [reported as L. Sohanraj & Ors. vs. Dy. CIT & Anr. (2003) 179 CTR (Kar)107—Ed.] holding that the appellants were not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to cancel the order made by the Tribunal as an alternate remedy of appeal provided under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961, was available to the appellants. Liberty has been reserved with the appellants to question the correctness or otherwise of the order made by the Tribunal before the appropriate forum for redressal of grievances.

2. We agree with the view taken by the Single Judge. In the face of an alternate statutory remedy provided under the Act, the appellants were not entitled to challenge the order of the Tribunal under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The appellants may if so advised, challenge the orders passed by the Tribunal along with an application for condonation of delay on the ground that the appellants were pursuing their remedy bona fide before the wrong forum. With these observations, the appeals are dismissed.

[Citation : 260 ITR 155]

Malcare WordPress Security