Poornima Textiles Vs Assessment Unit (Madras High Court)

The Madras High Court has held that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to examine disputed questions of fact since the entire basis of the assessment order lies on erroneous facts/ non-existent.

Facts- The present application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order. The petitioner challenged that the entire assessment is made on the basis of the purported deposits made in the current account. It was also submitted that the above accounts are not about the petitioner but rather about M/s. Kamala Textiles. Thus, the entire basis of the assessment order is based on wrong/non-existent facts.

Conclusion- Held that the entire basis of the assessment order rests on erroneous/non-existent facts, i.e. an inquiry which requires consideration of disputed questions of fact, which in my view, may not be appropriate in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is well known in law that consideration of disputed questions of fact does not normally come within the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

FULL TEXT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER

This writ petition is filed to challenge the orders in DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1059037242(1) dated 19.12.2023 and the consequent sanction order in DIN No. ITBA/PNL/F /271F/2024- 25/1065879194(1) of 20.06.2024, order in standard DIN no. ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(b)/2024-25/1065609952(1) of 12.06.2024 and order in standard DIN ITBA/PNL/F/271 (1)(c)/2024-25/1065879096(1) of 20.06.2024 for the assessment year 2015-2016 issued by the first respondent.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire assessment is made on the basis of the purported deposits made in current accounts Nos. 0024073000025473 and 0024083000003079 with the South Indian Bank Limited. It was also submitted that the above accounts are not about the petitioner but rather about M/s. Kamala Textiles.

3. Thus, the entire basis of the assessment order is based on wrong/non-existent facts i.e. an inquiry which requires consideration of controversial questions of fact, which in my opinion , may not be appropriate in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is well known in law that consideration of disputed questions of fact does not normally come within the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that these are matters which should be considered before the appellate authority.

5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to appeal to this Court.

6. In view of the above application, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such an appeal is filed, the same shall be heard, without any reference to the limitation, subject to compliance with all other conditions relating to the appeal, including prior filings if any, failing which the order disputed will be reinstated.

7. In view of the above, this written request is rejected. No fees. Therefore, the related miscellaneous petition is closed.