Noor Enterprises v. The Union Of India

2025:BHC-OS:4700-DB Sayyed 9-WP.4575.2024.docx IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4575 OF 2024 WRIT PETITION NO.4575 OF 2024 M/s. Noor Enterprises M/s. Noor Enterprises ...

...Petitioner

Petitioner

Versus

Versus

The Union of India & Ors.

The Union of India & Ors.

...

...Respondents

Respondents _____________________________________________________ Mr. Moeen Choudhary a/w Mr. S. K. Ali i/b. A. A. Siddiquie & Associates Mr. Moeen Choudhary a/w Mr. S. K. Ali i/b. A. A. Siddiquie & Associates for Petitioner.

for Petitioner.

Mr. Arjun Gupta for Respondent-Revenue.

Mr. Arjun Gupta for Respondent-Revenue.

_____________________________________________________ CORAM :

M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.

DATED : 24 March 2025 PC.:- 1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4 The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4 September 2024 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 September 2024 under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Exhibit-A).

(Exhibit-A).

3.

In paragraph 16 of the petition, the Petitioner had made the In paragraph 16 of the petition, the Petitioner had made the following averment :- following averment :- "The Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has no other efficacious "The Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has no other efficacious remedy available save and except to file this petition by way of remedy available save and except to file this petition by way of seeking indulgence of the Hon'ble court complaining about the seeking indulgence of the Hon'ble court complaining about the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India 1950 as well as defeating of the rule of law." 1950 as well as defeating of the rule of law." 4.

The above averment is patently incorrect. The Petitioner has The above averment is patently incorrect. The Petitioner has remedy of an appeal under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. remedy of an appeal under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There is no pleadings in the petition why this statutory and appellate There is no pleadings in the petition why this statutory and appellate remedy is not efficacious or why the Petitioner should be exempted remedy is not efficacious or why the Petitioner should be exempted from exhausting this statutory appellate remedy. Instead, the Petitioner from exhausting this statutory appellate remedy. Instead, the Petitioner

Sayyed 9-WP.4575.2024.docx has chosen to make a bald statement in paragraph 16 that it has no has chosen to make a bald statement in paragraph 16 that it has no other efficacious remedy save and except instituting this petition. other efficacious remedy save and except instituting this petition. 5.

Accordingly, we decline to entertain this petition and Accordingly, we decline to entertain this petition and dismissed the same. However, it will be open to the Petitioner to appeal dismissed the same. However, it will be open to the Petitioner to appeal the impugned order dated 4 September 2024 in accordance with law. the impugned order dated 4 September 2024 in accordance with law. 6.

The petition is dismissed with liberty in the above terms. No The petition is dismissed with liberty in the above terms. No costs.

costs.

(Jitendra Jain, J.) (M. S. Sonak, J.) Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/03/2025 18:41:15