Can I go straight to the High Court against an income-tax order instead of filing the statutory appeal?
Ordinarily no. The Supreme Court held that the Income-tax Act supplies a complete machinery for assessment and reassessment, and an assessee cannot abandon that machinery and invoke Article 226. The exceptions are narrow and have to be pleaded and made out — an order passed otherwise than in accordance with the enactment, in defiance of fundamental principles of judicial procedure, under repealed provisions, or in total violation of natural justice.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - H.L. Dattu and M.Y. Eqbal, JJ.) on 2013-08-08, reported as [2013] 36 taxmann.com 36 (SC)/[2013] 217 Taxman 143 (SC)/[2013] 357 ITR 357 (SC)/[2013] 261 CTR 113 (SC)/(2014) 1 SCC 603; Civil Appeal No. 6704 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 23898 of 2011), setting aside the Sikkim High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 44 of 2009 dated 5 October 2010. It bears on section 147, section 148, section 144, section 142(1), section Constitution Art. 226 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals, Reassessment & Reopening and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
This is the decision the standing counsel reads out when you file a writ against a notice or an order that carries an appeal. It is the reason a writ against a s.263 show-cause notice has to be framed as a jurisdiction point rather than a merits point: if the argument is that the Commissioner is wrong on the facts, that is exactly what the Tribunal is for, and the writ will be returned to you. Practitioners under-read it — it does not say a writ is never available, it says the exceptions must be established.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee was a Sikkim-based non-Sikkimese who filed his first return for assessment year 1997-98. On assessment it emerged that he had a net profit of Rs 5,78,832 in the year relevant to assessment year 1996-97, and a brought-forward closing capital of Rs 1,73,90,397 as on 31 March 1996 which was unexplained because no return had been filed for assessment year 1995-96. Notices under s.148 were issued on 26 May 1998 and 30 March 2000. He did not comply, and after a reminder, a s.142(1) notice and a final show cause, the assessments were completed ex parte under s.144, raising demands of Rs 2,45,87,625 for assessment year 1995-96 and Rs 6,32,972 for assessment year 1996-97, with penalty proceedings under s.271(1)(c). An earlier round of writ petitions on whether a non-Sikkimese resident in Sikkim was taxable had been withdrawn pending a Committee's report; after s.10(26AAA) was inserted by the Finance Act 2008 and the Board issued Instruction No. 8 of 29 July 2008, the assessing authority confirmed the notices and raised a demand on 11 December 2009. Instead of appealing to the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee went to the Sikkim High Court under Article 226, which went into the merits and quashed the assessment order on 5 October 2010. The Revenue appealed.
The appeal was allowed and the High Court's judgment set aside. Where the Act provides complete machinery for assessment and reassessment, for penalty and for relief against improper orders, an assessee cannot abandon that machinery and invoke Article 226 when an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) is open to him. The Court did not decide anything on the merits of the reassessment. It granted the assessee liberty to file an appeal against the s.148 reassessment orders within four weeks, directed that if he did so the appellate authority must consider it on merits without reference to limitation, clarified that the appellate authority is not to be influenced by any observation the High Court made, and left all contentions of the parties open.
The Court framed the single question as whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Article 226 when an equally efficacious alternative remedy was available (para 14). It began from the settled rule that non-entertainment of a writ petition where an efficacious alternative remedy exists is a rule of self-imposed limitation, one of policy, convenience and discretion rather than of law, so the High Court retains the power but must not interfere unless an exceptional case is made out (para 15). It collected the Constitution Bench authority that the writ remedy is discretionary and may be refused where suitable relief is available elsewhere, though it may be exercised where natural justice has been breached (para 16), and the line requiring statutory remedies to be exhausted where the statute creates a hierarchy of appeals (paras 17-18). It then set out the recognised exceptions - where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the enactment, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to provisions which are repealed, or where an order is passed in total violation of natural justice - and held that alongside them the general proposition still holds the field (para 19). Applying that, the Income-tax Act is such a complete machinery. But the Court added a qualification: the statutory remedy must be effective and not a mere formality with no substantial relief, and if an appeal lies from Caesar to Caesar's wife the alternative remedy is a mirage. Here the assessee had never described the appeal as ineffectual, and the High Court had given no cogent reason for exercising its jurisdiction (para 20).
the Act provides complete machinery for the assessment/re-assessment of tax, imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, and the assessee could not be permitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when he had adequate remedy open to him by an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppOrdinarily no. The Supreme Court held that the Income-tax Act supplies a complete machinery for assessment and reassessment, and an assessee cannot abandon that machinery and invoke Article 226. The exceptions are narrow and have to be pleaded and made out — an order passed otherwise than in accordance with the enactment, in defiance of fundamental principles of judicial procedure, under repealed provisions, or in total violation of natural justice. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - H.L. Dattu and M.Y. Eqbal, JJ.) and bears on section 147, section 148, section 144, section 142(1), section Constitution Art. 226 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [2013] 36 taxmann.com 36 (SC)/[2013] 217 Taxman 143 (SC)/[2013] 357 ITR 357 (SC)/[2013] 261 CTR 113 (SC)/(2014) 1 SCC 603; Civil Appeal No. 6704 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 23898 of 2011), setting aside the Sikkim High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 44 of 2009 dated 5 October 2010. This is the decision the standing counsel reads out when you file a writ against a notice or an order that carries an appeal. It is the reason a writ against a s.263 show-cause notice has to be framed as a jurisdiction point rather than a merits point: if the argument is that the Commissioner is wrong on the facts, that is exactly what the Tribunal is for, and the writ will be returned to you. Practitioners under-read it — it does not say a writ is never available, it says the exceptions must be established. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Before filing a writ, identify which of the paragraph 19 exceptions you are in and plead it expressly; a general assertion of illegality will not do.
The assessee was a Sikkim-based non-Sikkimese who filed his first return for assessment year 1997-98. On assessment it emerged that he had a net profit of Rs 5,78,832 in the year relevant to assessment year 1996-97, and a brought-forward closing capital of Rs 1,73,90,397 as on 31 March 1996 which was unexplained because no return had been filed for assessment year 1995-96. Notices under s.148 were issued on 26 May 1998 and 30 March 2000. He did not comply, and after a reminder, a s.142(1) notice and a final show cause, the assessments were completed ex parte under s.144, raising demands of Rs 2,45,87,625 for assessment year 1995-96 and Rs 6,32,972 for assessment year 1996-97, with penalty proceedings under s.271(1)(c). An earlier round of writ petitions on whether a non-Sikkimese resident in Sikkim was taxable had been withdrawn pending a Committee's report; after s.10(26AAA) was inserted by the Finance Act 2008 and the Board issued Instruction No. 8 of 29 July 2008, the assessing authority confirmed the notices and raised a demand on 11 December 2009. Instead of appealing to the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee went to the Sikkim High Court under Article 226, which went into the merits and quashed the assessment order on 5 October 2010. The Revenue appealed. The matter was decided on 2013-08-08 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - H.L. Dattu and M.Y. Eqbal, JJ.). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The appeal was allowed and the High Court's judgment set aside. Where the Act provides complete machinery for assessment and reassessment, for penalty and for relief against improper orders, an assessee cannot abandon that machinery and invoke Article 226 when an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) is open to him. The Court did not decide anything on the merits of the reassessment. It granted the assessee liberty to file an appeal against the s.148 reassessment orders within four weeks, directed that if he did so the appellate authority must consider it on merits without reference to limitation, clarified that the appellate authority is not to be influenced by any observation the High Court made, and left all contentions of the parties open.
The Court framed the single question as whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Article 226 when an equally efficacious alternative remedy was available (para 14). It began from the settled rule that non-entertainment of a writ petition where an efficacious alternative remedy exists is a rule of self-imposed limitation, one of policy, convenience and discretion rather than of law, so the High Court retains the power but must not interfere unless an exceptional case is made out (para 15). It collected the Constitution Bench authority that the writ remedy is discretionary and may be refused where suitable relief is available elsewhere, though it may be exercised where natural justice has been breached (para 16), and the line requiring statutory remedies to be exhausted where the statute creates a hierarchy of appeals (paras 17-18). It then set out the recognised exceptions - where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the enactment, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to provisions which are repealed, or where an order is passed in total violation of natural justice - and held that alongside them the general proposition still holds the field (para 19). Applying that, the Income-tax Act is such a complete machinery. But the Court added a qualification: the statutory remedy must be effective and not a mere formality with no substantial relief, and if an appeal lies from Caesar to Caesar's wife the alternative remedy is a mirage. Here the assessee had never described the appeal as ineffectual, and the High Court had given no cogent reason for exercising its jurisdiction (para 20). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "the Act provides complete machinery for the assessment/re-assessment of tax, imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, and the assessee could not be permitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when he had adequate remedy open to him by an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)"
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 2013-08-08 and is reported as [2013] 36 taxmann.com 36 (SC)/[2013] 217 Taxman 143 (SC)/[2013] 357 ITR 357 (SC)/[2013] 261 CTR 113 (SC)/(2014) 1 SCC 603; Civil Appeal No. 6704 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 23898 of 2011), setting aside the Sikkim High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 44 of 2009 dated 5 October 2010. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 147, section 148, section 144, section 142(1), section Constitution Art. 226, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The appeal was allowed and the High Court's judgment set aside. Where the Act provides complete machinery for assessment and reassessment, for penalty and for relief against improper orders, an assessee cannot abandon that machinery and invoke Article 226 when an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) is open to him. The Court did not decide anything on the merits of the reassessment. It granted the assessee liberty to file an appeal against the s.148 reassessment orders within four weeks, directed that if he did so the appellate authority must consider it on merits without reference to limitation, clarified that the appellate authority is not to be influenced by any observation the High Court made, and left all contentions of the parties open. It arises in Appeals, Reassessment & Reopening and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section 147, section 148, section 144, section 142(1), section Constitution Art. 226 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India - H.L. Dattu and M.Y. Eqbal, JJ.. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. If your point is that the officer got the facts or the law wrong, file the statutory appeal — this decision closes the writ route on that footing. Where the grievance is that the authority acted without the jurisdictional fact the section requires, say so in terms and set out the missing fact, because that is the exception that survives. Keep the appeal alive in parallel while a writ is pending; the limitation for the statutory appeal does not stop running because you chose Article 226.
Still good law. No later decision overruling or doubting it was found. It sits alongside, rather than against, Godrej Sara Lee Ltd v. Excise and Taxation Officer (SC, 1 February 2023), which holds that the availability of an alternative remedy goes to whether a writ will be entertained in the court's discretion, not to whether it is maintainable at all, and which restates the Whirlpool exceptions. Read together: the writ is competent, but it will normally not be entertained unless one of the exceptions is made out. That reconciliation is mine, from the two decisions as fetched; no page I read states it in those terms. That finding was checked against a published source, which is linked on this page, on 2026-08-25. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
Two things in the judgment are routinely left out when it is cited against an assessee. First, the Court treated non-entertainment of a writ as a rule of self-imposed limitation, 'essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law' (para 15), so the writ is competent and the question is whether it should be entertained. That is the same position the Court took later in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer (SC, 1 February 2023), and it means the two decisions sit alongside each other rather than in tension. Second, para 20 qualifies the rule: the statutory remedy must be effective and not a mere formality with no substantial relief, and an appeal from Caesar to Caesar's wife makes the alternative remedy a mirage. The recognised exceptions are set out at para 19 - action not in accordance with the enactment, defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, resort to repealed provisions, or an order in total violation of natural justice. The decision is about a completed reassessment order, not a s.263 show cause notice; whether it applies at the notice stage of a revision is a separate question it does not answer. The SCC citation, previously recorded here as unverified, is printed on the judgment itself: (2014) 1 SCC 603. The Court decided nothing about whether the reassessments were sustainable, or whether a non-Sikkimese resident of Sikkim was taxable for these years: it granted liberty to appeal within four weeks, directed the appellate authority to decide on merits without reference to limitation, and left all contentions open (paras 23-25). It does not say what makes an alternative remedy 'ineffectual and non-efficacious', only that the assessee here had never said it was. It does not deal with a writ against a notice as distinct from a completed order. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was allowed and the High Court's judgment set aside. Where the Act provides complete machinery for assessment and reassessment, for penalty and for relief against improper orders, an assessee cannot abandon that machinery and invoke Article 226 when an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) is open to him. The Court did not decide anything on the merits of the reassessment. It granted the assessee liberty to file an appeal against the s.148 reassessment orders within four weeks, directed that if he did so the appellate authority must consider it on merits without reference to limitation, clarified that the appellate authority is not to be influenced by any observation the High Court made, and left all contentions of the parties open.
TaxSphere, “CIT v Chhabil Dass Agarwal”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/cit-v-chhabil-dass-agarwal-writ-alternative-remedy/ (validity last checked 2026-08-25)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The order under section 148A(d) rejects everything I said and the section 148 notice has followed. Can I take it straight to the High Court?
My file has been moved to another city under section 127. The order says only that it was for facility of investigation, and nobody has given me the reasons. Is that enough?
The High Court dismissed my writ saying an appeal was available. Was it entitled to do that without looking at the point?
The department has provisionally attached my receivables. Can I go straight to the High Court, or must I appeal first?
