SUNENA GARG Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this order, two writ petitions (Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 6834 and 6835 of 1990), are being disposed of as identical questions arise therein.

(2.) THE first writ has been filed by Mrs. Sunena Garg and the other by Mr. K. K. Garg. The first writ petition relates to the assessment year 1988 -89 and the other to the assessment year 1987 -88. The returns were filed and in the first case the assessment of Income Tax was finalised on December 30, 1988, copy of the order, annexure P -2. On April 10, 1990, notice, annexure P -3, under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued which is challenged in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the other case, the assessment was finalised on December 28, 1987, and notice was issued on April 10, 1990, under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, which is challenged.

(3.) ON a notice of motion written statements have been filed, inter alia, raising a preliminary point that alternative remedy under the Act is available and this court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that efficacious alternative remedy is available under the provisions of the Act by filing a reply to the notice and return and if any fresh assessment is framed, to challenge the same by filing appeals, etc. When the facts are disputed it would not be appropriate to have resort to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. A similar matter came up before this court in State Bank of Patiala v. . After referring to the case law on the subject, it was observed as under (at page 199) :