A.L. Bahri, J. - (1.) VIDE this order, two writ petitions (Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 6834 and 6835 of 1990), are being disposed of as identical questions arise therein.
(2.) THE first writ has been filed by Mrs. Sunena Garg and the other by Mr. K. K. Garg. The first writ petition relates to the assessment year 1988 -89 and the other to the assessment year 1987 -88. The returns were filed and in the first case the assessment of Income Tax was finalised on December 30, 1988, copy of the order, annexure P -2. On April 10, 1990, notice, annexure P -3, under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued which is challenged in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the other case, the assessment was finalised on December 28, 1987, and notice was issued on April 10, 1990, under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, which is challenged. In both these cases, the claim of the petitioners is that in subsequent years the petitioners were allowed deduction on account of guarantee commission which is now sought to be added by issuing a notice.
(3.) ON a notice of motion written statements have been filed, inter alia, raising a preliminary point that alternative remedy under the Act is available and this court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that efficacious alternative remedy is available under the provisions of the Act by filing a reply to the notice and return and if any fresh assessment is framed, to challenge the same by filing appeals, etc. When the facts are disputed it would not be appropriate to have resort to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. A similar matter came up before this court in State Bank of Patiala v. . After referring 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 the 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 as having been passed without jurisdiction 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.";