Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed seeking quashing of notice passed against the petitioner under Sections 148 and 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(“IT Act”), as well as the subsequent order passed against him and also seeking release of his bank accounts, the Division Bench of Shekhar B. Saraf and Majive Shukla, JJ., dismissed the application, holding that since the petitioner chose to proceed under the remedy provided in the statute, he could not be allowed to seek a fresh remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court reiterated that one cannot claim a fresh remedy under Article 226 after availing a statutory remedy.
Background
The petitioner filed the present petition seeking quashing of the impugned notice under Sections 148 and 148A(d) passed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) for the Assessment Year(“AY”) 2017-18, as well as the consequential order passed by the JAO under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the IT Act. The petitioner also sought a stay on the recovery for AY 2017-18 and release of his bank account.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court noted that the petitioner had filed a rectification application against the impugned order passed under Section 147 of the IT Act, which was not disclosed in the present writ petition.
The Court referred to Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. v. Diamond & Gem Development Corpn. Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 470, wherein it was held that one cannot ‘approbate and reprobate’ at the same time, as it vitiates the legal principle that one cannot accept and reject the same legal instrument or transaction.
The Court stated that in the present case, the petitioner, after applying for rectification as provided in the statute of an order, subsequently chose to approach the writ court for quashing the same order.
Thus, the Court held that since he chose to proceed under the remedy provided in the statute, he could not be allowed to seek a fresh remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution.
“The rationale behind the same is that when on the same facts, a person has the right to claim one of two reliefs and with full knowledge he elects to claim one and obtains it, it is not open to him thereafter to flunk out on his election and claim the alternative relief.”
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
[Anand Kumar Verma v. Prin. Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad, Writ Tax No. 1270 of 2025, decided on 27-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Alok Kumar Gupta, Pradeep Agrawal
For the respondents: Kushagra Dikshit
Buy Constitution of India HERE
