The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging an assessment order passed pursuant to proceedings under Section 148, holding that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice and that the assessee has an efficacious alternative remedy under the statute.

The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai observed that the petitioner had indeed been given adequate opportunity to respond. The show cause notice was duly served, replies were filed by the petitioner at multiple stages, and the final assessment order reflected consideration of the petitioner’s submissions, including denial of alleged cash transactions and reliance on agreements with the Omaxe Group

The case arose from reassessment proceedings initiated against the petitioner based on evidence gathered during a search and seizure operation conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act in the case of the Omaxe Group. During the search, authorities allegedly discovered unaccounted financial transactions involving the petitioner amounting to ₹31.34 lakh for the financial year 2020–21. 

The petitioner challenged the reassessment proceedings primarily on the ground that the assessment order was passed without affording a proper opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. It was contended that certain documents sought by the petitioner were not provided and that the reply submitted on 17 March 2026 was not considered before finalising the assessment order dated 25 March 2026. 

On the other hand, the Income Tax Department opposed the petition, arguing that all relevant documents were duly supplied along with the show cause notice issued under Section 148. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s replies, including the detailed response dated 17 March 2026, were duly considered by the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order. 

The Court categorically held that this was not a case of denial of natural justice. It emphasized that mere dissatisfaction with the outcome of the assessment cannot be equated with procedural unfairness. Since the petitioner had participated in the proceedings and her submissions were considered, the requirement of fair hearing stood satisfied. 

Importantly, the High Court also reiterated the settled legal position that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not ordinarily be invoked in tax matters where an effective alternative remedy exists. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chhabil Das Agarwal, the Court held that the petitioner should pursue the statutory appellate remedy available under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, with the Court holding that no exceptional circumstances were made out to bypass the statutory appellate mechanism.

Case Details

Case Title: Anju Verma Versus UOI

Citation: JURISHOUR-1006-HC-2026(ALL) 

Case No.: WRIT TAX No. – 585 of 2026

Date: 22/04/2026

Counsel For  Petitioner: Saghar Mehdi

Counsel For Respondent:  A.S.G.I., Kushagra Dikshit

Read More: GST Penalty Not Specified in DRC-01 Can’t Be Confirmed: Allahabad High Court