Synopsis

This judgment by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismisses a writ appeal filed by an assessee challenging a car purchase assessment order under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant had purchased a Rolls Royce Phantom car, which was later seized by the Income Tax Department. Assessment orders were passed, and the appellant's appeals were rejected. The appellant then filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge with a liberty to file a statutory appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The Division Bench upheld this decision, holding that the Income Tax Act provides a complete and efficacious statutory remedy, and that the case involved disputed questions of fact not suitable for determination in writ proceedings. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to avail the statutory appellate remedy.

1. Heading for the judgment

Citation: Dr. Arvind Kumar R Shaw v. Union of India & Ors., WA No. 773 of 2026, decided on 25.03.2026 (Madras High Court - DB)
Coram: Hon'ble The Chief Justice Mr. Sushirut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Arul Murugan (Division Bench)
Core Law: Income Tax Act, 1961; Constitutional Law (Article 226).

Madras High Court dismisses writ appeal in tax matter, holds that statutory appeal under the Income Tax Act is the proper remedy and writ jurisdiction is not available when disputed facts exist.

2. Legal framework

This judgment reaffirms the well-settled principle that a writ court will not entertain a petition when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists.

• Income Tax Act, 1961:
  Section 143(3): Pertains to assessment orders.
  Section 153C: Deals with assessment of income of any other person in certain cases

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.