Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to adjudicate disputed facts without exploring an alternative statutory remedy under the Income Tax Act: Calcutta HC
Recently, Caclutta High court in the case of M/s. Rupam Jewellery vs. Union of India & Others, WPA 21480 of 2009 | Decided on October 24, 2025 | Calcutta High Court, has held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to adjudicate disputed facts without exploring an alternative statutory remedy under the Income Tax Act
Let us have a Short Overview of the Case: –
Background
• The petitioner, M/s. Rupam Jewellery, challenged the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequent notice under Section 148 dated 10.07.2009.
• The petitioner claimed to be a bona fide taxpayer and alleged that the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-2, Haldia, initiated the proceeding without proper reasons or material evidence of income escapement.
Petitioner’s Contention
• The reopening was based merely on vague suspicions about “large-scale evasion of taxable income.”
• No specific or tangible reasons to believe were furnished, violating the requirement under Sections 147 and 148.
• The principle of natural justice was breached since the reasons for reopening were not adequately communicated.
• The petitioner relied on Assistant CIT v. Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. (2024) 461 ITR 339 (SC) and Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 398 ITR 198 (Delhi), where courts held that “reasons to suspect” do not equate to “reasons to believe.”
Department’s Stand
• The petition was procedurally defective and delayed. The petitioner failed to annex the notice under Section 148.
• The notice was actually issued on 31.03.2008, with follow-up notices under Sections 143(2) (10.07.2009) and 142(1) (05.08.2009).
• Final assessment was completed on 31.12.2009, assessing total income at Rs. 38,46,690.
• The writ petition filed in December 2009 became infructuous after the passing of the final order.
Court’s Findings
• The court noted that no copy of the Section 148 notice was annexed to the writ petition, making it impossible to examine the validity of reopening.
• Since the assessment order dated 31.12.2009 had already been passed and not challenged through the statutory appellate mechanism, the writ petition had become infructuous.
• The court reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to adjudicate disputed facts and that an alternative statutory remedy-appeal under the Income Tax Act—must be pursued instead.
Decision
• Writ petition dismissed as infructuous and not maintainable.
• No order as to costs.
• The petitioner was, however, given liberty to file an appeal against the assessment order dated 31.12.2009 before the appropriate appellate authority, which was directed to consider it independently and uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations
The copy of the order is as under:
