MODERN GUN WORK Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions challenge the notices issued by the concerned Income-tax Officers under Section 186 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), requiring the petitioner-assessees to show cause as to why the registration granted to them be not cancelled because they are alleged to have taken partners without the approval of the licensing authority under the Arms Act.

(2.) THE Act is a complete code and provides various remedies in the form of appeals, etc., to the aggrieved assessees. THE petitioners can raise all the points raised in these writ petitions before the concerned Income-tax Officers and invite adjudication thereon. THE issues agitated tend to raise a controversy regarding facts. Writ proceedings are not appropriate proceedings for determination of such controversies. Even otherwise, the petitioners have effective and efficacious remedies for contesting the notices and any adverse orders stemming therefrom.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, I decline to exercise my jurisdiction under the aforementioned articles and relegate the petitioners to avail of the remedies under ordinary law by raising all objections before the concerned Income-tax Officers. The petitioners shall be at liberty to file their objections to the impugned notices if they have not already filed them, on or before June 1, 1990. However, in the interests of justice, it is directed that in the case of each of the petitioners, the concerned Income-tax Officer shall take up the first year for which notices under Section 186 have been issued. He shall first decide that case and record his conclusions regarding the genuineness and validity of the partnership concern ; only thereafter the matters pertaining to the following years shall be taken up but not earlier than six months. Learned counsel for the petitioners are agreed that if the concerned Income-tax Officer takes up the notices for the subsequent years after a period of six months of the passing of the first order aforementioned, then the petitioners shall not raise the question of limitation.