Bombay High CourtWP/499/2025disposed off

Mediacom Communications Private Limited 2023 24 v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 2(2)(1) Mumbai

2025-02-11Hon'Ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal Jain , Hon'Ble Shri Justice M.S. Sonak3 pages

2025:BHC-OS:2222 Sayyed 9-WP.499.2025.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.499 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO.499 OF 2025 Mediacom Communications Private Mediacom Communications Private Limited Limited

...Petitioner

Versus

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 2(2)(1), Mumbai Circle - 2(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.

& Ors.

...Respondents

_____________________________________________________ Mr. Dharan V. Gandhi for Petitioner.

Mr. Dharan V. Gandhi for Petitioner.

Mr. N. C. Mohanty for Respondents.

_____________________________________________________ CORAM :

M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.

DATED : 11 February 2025 PC.:- (Per M. S. Sonak, J.) 1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions Mr.

Gandhi, learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions presses for relief in terms of only prayer clause (f) of this petition which presses for relief in terms of only prayer clause (f) of this petition which reads as follows:- reads as follows:- "(f) In the alternate issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the "(f) In the alternate issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the Respondents or their employees, subordinates, agents and the Respondents or their employees, subordinates, agents and successors in office to forthwith reprocess the rectification successors in office to forthwith reprocess the rectification application dated 06.

02.2024 (Exhibit I) and issue the amount of application dated 06.02.2024 (Exhibit I) and issue the amount of refund due of Rs. 22,57,81,670/- along with interest under section refund due of Rs. 22,57,81,670/- along with interest under section 244A of the Act till the date of actual payment;" 244A of the Act till the date of actual payment;" 3.

In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the Petitioner has In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the Petitioner has admitted that as against the order dated 24 September 2024 rejecting admitted that as against the order dated 24 September 2024 rejecting the Petitioner's rectification application dated 6 February 2024, an the Petitioner's rectification application dated 6 February 2024, an appeal lies to the appellate authority in terms of Section 246A(c) of the appeal lies to the appellate authority in terms of Section 246A(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("IT Act"). However, the argument is that since Income Tax Act, 1961 ("IT Act"). However, the argument is that since the order dated 24 September 2024 is passed arbitrarily and without the order dated 24 September 2024 is passed arbitrarily and without

Sayyed 9-WP.499.2025.docx jurisdiction, the Petitioner should not be relegated to avail of the jurisdiction, the Petitioner should not be relegated to avail of the alternate remedy.

alternate remedy.

Upon hearing Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Upon hearing Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for the Petitioner, we are satisfied that no case has been made to bypass the available we are satisfied that no case has been made to bypass the available alternate remedy. The usual rule of exhaustion of alternate remedies alternate remedy. The usual rule of exhaustion of alternate remedies cannot be bypassed by simply styling the order dated 24 September cannot be bypassed by simply styling the order dated 24 September 2024 as arbitrary or without jurisdiction.

2024 as arbitrary or without jurisdiction.

In prayer clause (f), the Petitioner has not even applied for In prayer clause (f), the Petitioner has not even applied for setting aside the order dated 24 September 2024. The Petitioner has setting aside the order dated 24 September 2024. The Petitioner has directly prayed for a writ of mandamus to re-process the rectification directly prayed for a writ of mandamus to re-process the rectification application dated 6 February 2024, which is already rejected by the application dated 6 February 2024, which is already rejected by the order dated 24 September 2024. By simply paraphrasing the prayer order dated 24 September 2024. By simply paraphrasing the prayer clauses in a particular manner, no relief, which would virtually have the clauses in a particular manner, no relief, which would virtually have the effect of setting aside the order dated 24 September 2024, can be effect of setting aside the order dated 24 September 2024, can be obtained.

obtained.

Mr. Gandhi relied on the order made by the Coordinate Bench Mr. Gandhi relied on the order made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 18 December 2023 in Writ Petition No.1678 of 2023 in of this Court on 18 December 2023 in Writ Petition No.1678 of 2023 in the petition instituted by this Petitioner. On perusing the order, we find the petition instituted by this Petitioner. On perusing the order, we find that a statement was made on behalf of the Department that a that a statement was made on behalf of the Department that a jurisdictional Assessing Officer has been assigned to investigate the jurisdictional Assessing Officer has been assigned to investigate the grievances raised by the Petitioner. Based upon such statement and after grievances raised by the Petitioner.

Based upon such statement and after recording the same, this Court disposed of the petition, keeping open all recording the same, this Court disposed of the petition, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. This order does not discuss the rights and contentions of the parties. This order does not discuss the issue of alternate remedy, and in any event, this petition was disposed issue of alternate remedy, and in any event, this petition was disposed of based on a statement made on behalf of the Department. of based on a statement made on behalf of the Department. 7.

Mr. Gandhi also relies on yet another order dated 27 March Mr. Gandhi also relies on yet another order dated 27 March 2024 made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (L) 2024 made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (L) No.5941 of 2024 in the petition instituted by this Petitioner. Again, this No.5941 of 2024 in the petition instituted by this Petitioner. Again, this

Sayyed 9-WP.499.2025.docx order directed the disposal of the Petitioner's application under Section order directed the disposal of the Petitioner's application under Section 154 of the IT Act by passing a reasoned order. It was clarified that no 154 of the IT Act by passing a reasoned order. It was clarified that no observations were being made on the merits of the matter. Even this observations were being made on the merits of the matter. Even this order cannot be an answer to the objections about non-exhaustion of order cannot be an answer to the objections about non-exhaustion of alternate remedies available to the Petitioner. alternate remedies available to the Petitioner. 8.

In In Oberoi Constructions vs. Union of India Oberoi Constructions vs. Union of India in Writ Petition (L) in Writ Petition (L) No.33260 of 2023 by order dated 11 November 2024, we have No.33260 of 2023 by order dated 11 November 2024, we have discussed the issues relating to the exhaustion of alternate remedies in discussed the issues relating to the exhaustion of alternate remedies in tax matters. In the decision, we also referred to several precedents of tax matters. In the decision, we also referred to several precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue. By adopting reasoning therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue.

By adopting reasoning therein, we decline to entertain this petition because the Petitioner has an we decline to entertain this petition because the Petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy under the IT Act. None of the wellalternate and efficacious remedy under the IT Act. None of the wellrecognised exceptions for bypassing the alternate remedy are made out recognised exceptions for bypassing the alternate remedy are made out in this matter.

in this matter.

For all the above reasons, we dismiss this petition, but we For all the above reasons, we dismiss this petition, but we leave the Petitioner free to choose alternate remedies. leave the Petitioner free to choose alternate remedies. 10.

However, All parties' contentions on merits are left open since However, All parties' contentions on merits are left open since we have not examined such contentions.

we have not examined such contentions.

(Jitendra Jain, J.) (M. S. Sonak, J.) Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 12/02/2025 15:04:55