A.L. Bahri, J. - (1.) VIDE this order two Writ Petitions Nos. 16495 and 16496 of 1990 are being disposed of as a common question of law arises therein. In both cases, the parties are the same. Civil Writ Petition No. 16496 of 1990 relates to the assessment year 1981 -82 and the other writ petition relates to the assessment year 1982 -83.
(2.) ISSUING of notices under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, gave rise to the aforesaid writ petitions. The assessments (annexure "P -1") were finalised on March 23. 1984, and March 28, 1985, respectively, and the notices aforesaid were issued on November 19, 1990 (annexure "P -2"). The challenge to the notices aforesaid is on the ground of limitation. As per law prevalent, on April 1, 1981, notices could be issued within eight years of conclusion of the assessment year after obtaining necessary sanctions. However, the Income Tax Act was amended with effect from April 1, 1989, and the period of eight years was extended to ten years. Thus, the short question for consideration in these writ petitions is about the applicability of the amendment made in the year 1989 to the assessments made for the assessment years 1981 -82 and 1982 -83. According to the petitioner, assessments for the assessment years aforesaid were to be framed as per law prevalent on April 1, of the respective assessment year and the notices issued in the present cases having been issued without obtaining prior sanction are without jurisdiction.
(3.) ON notice of motion, written statements have been filed by the Revenue, contesting the petitions, inter alia, raising a preliminary objection that since alternative remedy under the Act is available, the petitioner could not invoke the jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution. On the merits, it is asserted that the amendment made with effect from April 1, 1989, merely extended the period of limitation, which had not by then expired and by application of the amending Act, the notices issued were valid and no sanction is now required under the amending Act. Learned counsel Shri R. P. Sawhney, senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, has argued that the present writ petitions should be dismissed and the petitioner should be relegated to the remedy available under the Act, i.e., he should file reply (return) in response to the notices and raise all questions of fact and law arid the authorities under the Act would be competent to adjudicate such questions. Reliance has been placed, in support of this contention, upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. : [1983]142ITR663(SC) . That was a case under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. While making the assessment under Section 12(4), treating the gross turnover of inside sales as returned by the assessee as their taxable turnover, the assessee's claim for deduction of sales to registered dealers was disallowed. The assessee filed a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the assessments on the ground that the Sales Tax Officer had acted in flagrant violation of the rules of natural justice, as proper opportunity was not afforded to the assessee. The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that assessee had a right of appeal and this was not a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. The assessee approached the Supreme Court by a special leave petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition holding that the assessee had an equally efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal and second appeal. It was further observed that the Act provided a complete machinery to challenge orders of assessment and the same could be challenged in the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The other decision relied upon is of this court in M. M. Mahajan v. , wherein a similar view was taken. The Assam High Court in Seth Kirorimal Adwani v. also took the same view. Lastly, reference be made to the decision of this court in State Bank of Patiala v. . In this case, after making reference to the case law on the subject, it was observed as under (at page 199) : " Normally, the parties should approach the authorities under the statute for settlement of disputes. The High Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not expected to act as an appellate authority or a revisional authority on the orders passed by the authorities under the statute. When orders are challenged having been passed without jurisdiction that the resort can be had to the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution. This broad proposition is of course subject to the condition that if the facts on the basis of which the jurisdiction of the authority taking action under the statute is questioned are disputed, it would not be appropriate to interfere in the exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The parties should be relegated to the remedy available under the statute to raise disputed questions of fact on the merits as well as on the question of jurisdiction." ;