The Supreme Court of India recently, in Red Chilli International Sales v ITO [2023] 146 taxmann.com 224 (SC), set aside a judgment of the High Court, and held that a writ petition cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that alternative remedy was available.
The Court held that:
It should have been examined by the High Court as to whether jurisdiction preconditions for issue of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were satisfied.
The provisions of reopening have undergone substantial changes vide Finance Act, 2021, and require a deeper and in-depth consideration keeping in view the earlier case law.
The writ petition could not have merely been dismissed on the basis of availability of alternative remedy, and the issue required to be examined in depth.
The Court ought to have examined the notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the annexures thereto, the reply filed by the assessee, and the order passed u/s 148A(d) of such Act.
Our Analysis
The availability of alternative remedy should not come in the way of a writ petition in case there are jurisdictional questions involved. Jurisdiction is an objective matter, wherein it can clearly be decided by the Court whether the authority had the relevant jurisdiction or not to proceed with the case.
In cases where the issues involved are based on merits and facts, and the writ petition is filed on the basis of perversity of an order, the availability of alternative remedy may be a ground for dismissal - perversity is a subjective matter, and unless the perversity is clearly apparent on the face of the record, higher courts may not be inclined to entertain.
AUTHORED BY
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.