Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Sony India Pvt. Ltd., challenged orders dated 12.03.2021 and 31.01.2021 issued by the Income Tax Department concerning TDS-related issues.

The petitioner contended that the matter was already covered by a prior judgment of the Delhi High Court in Concentrix Services Netherlands B.V. vs Income Tax Officer (TDS), which addressed similar legal questions.

The Revenue argued that although the issue was covered, the petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy, and therefore the writ petition should not be entertained.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when an alternate statutory remedy exists.
  2. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction when the issue is already settled by precedent.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The issue raised is squarely covered by the judgment in Concentrix Services Netherlands B.V.
  • There is no factual dispute, and therefore remitting the matter to an alternate forum would be unnecessary.
  • The High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 to grant relief despite alternate remedies.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The Revenue accepted that the issue is covered by precedent.
  • However, it argued that the petitioner should pursue the alternate remedy available under the Income Tax Act.

Court’s Findings / Order

  • The Court held that existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
  • It relied on precedents such as:
    • Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs ITO
    • Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar of Trade Marks
    • ABL International Ltd. vs Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.
  • The Court emphasized:
    • Alternate remedy is a self-imposed restriction, not a jurisdictional bar.
    • Where the issue is already settled and facts are undisputed, relegating parties to alternate forums is unnecessary.

 Final Order:

  • The impugned orders dated 12.03.2021 and 31.01.2021 were set aside.
  • The writ petition was allowed and disposed of.

Important Clarifications by the Court

  • Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is plenary and discretionary.
  • Even in cases involving:
    • Alternate remedies
    • Contractual disputes
    • Disputed facts
      the High Court can still exercise jurisdiction if justice demands.
  • Judicial efficiency requires avoiding unnecessary procedural delays when the issue is already settled.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India
  • Provisions under the Income Tax Act (TDS-related proceedings)

 Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2021:DHC:1808-DB/TWS03062021CW38762021_125943.pdf


Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.