Singam Chetty Ateendrooloo Chetty Charities vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, and Another

Veeraswami, C.J.—The assessment orders were made as early as February 25, 1970, and it is to quash those orders the petitions have

been filed under article 226 of the Constitution. It is not denied that appeals and further appeals lay against the orders and the Act also provides for

a reference to this court if the assessee felt aggrieved by the Tribunals orders on a question of law arising out of the orders. But, the assessee took

the risk of by passing these remedies and went to the Commissioner against the assessment orders. The question is not whether that procedure

was correct so far as the assessee was concerned. Nor is it the question whether the writ petitions can be entertained against the orders of the

Commissioner. The point is whether the assessee can be allowed to bypass the scheme of remedies against the assessment orders provided by the

Act and be allowed to move this court straightway under article 226 of the Constitution against the orders of assessment themselves. We think it

will be contrary to the very scheme of the Act to allow that kind of thing, and it is not contemplated that passions under article 226 of the

Constitution should be entertained, allowing the assessee to bypass the statutory remedies, more especially when the question raised is entirely

within the purview of the authorities below. There is here neither the question of virus nor the question of virus nor the question of jurisdiction. Our

attention has been invited to Dwarak Nath v. Income Tax Officer, Special Circle, D-Ward, Kanpur. But we do not think that it in any way

compels us to take a view different from that we have taken in these cases.

The petitions are dismissed.