Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Order: 17.06.2025 vs The Union Of India Represented By Its … on 17 June, 2025
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
2025:MLHC:517-DB
Serial No. 02 & 03
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 52 of 2025 with
WP(C) No. 65 of 2025
Date of Order: 17.06.2025
Shri Mitchell Wankhar ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The Union of India represented by its Secretary,
Department of Income Tax, Ministry of Finance
2. Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department,
Ministry of Finance, Office of the Income Tax
ITO, W/2, Shillong
3. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ministry of Finance,
Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance,
Office of the Income Tax ITO, W/2, Shillong
4. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance,
Office of the Income Tax ITO, W/2, Shillong
5. State Bank of India through its representative
Kench's Trace Branch, Shillong-793004
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya
6. The Meghalaya Rural Bank through its representative
Lumshatsngi Branch, Shillong-793004
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya .... Respondent(s)
Page 1 of 9
2025:MLHC:517-DB
______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. M.L. Gope, Adv. with
Ms. N. Hawelia, Adv.
Ms. H. Jain, Adv.
Mr. D. Das, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Chetia, Adv. (For R 2-4)
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
Per. H.S. Thangkhiew, Judge:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. These two writ petitions being similar in facts and
circumstances are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The writ petitioner in these two writ petitions is stated
to be a business man belonging to the Khasi Scheduled Tribe
community and is before this Court seeking a mandamus to direct
the respondents (Income Tax Authorities) for stay of recovery
proceedings of an amount mentioned in Demand Notices dated
Page 2 of 9
2025:MLHC:517-DB
26.02.2024 in (WP(C) No. 52 of 2025) and 15.02.2024 in (WP(C)
No. 65 of 2025) issued under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act,
1961, and for directions not to freeze the Bank Accounts, or to
attach the assets, or to take any coercive action until the final
disposal of the petitioner appeals under Section 246A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961.
3. The brief background facts in WP(C) No. 52 of 2025 are
that the petitioner did not file his Income Tax returns for assessment
years 2016-17, as he believed that being a member Khasi Scheduled
Tribe, his income was not taxable being exempted under section
10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the respondents
initiated re-assessment proceedings under Section 148A (d)
requiring the petitioner to explain certain deposits. In response
thereto, the petitioner had filed his Income Tax returns declaring an
income of Rs. 70,53,500/- while asserting that his income was not
taxable. An assessment order dated 26.02.2024 was then passed
under Sections 147, 144 and 144B treating certain business deposits
as unexplained income under Section 69A and consequently, a
Demand Notice under Section 156 was issued raising a tax demand
of Rs. 14.17 Crores.
Page 3 of 9
2025:MLHC:517-DB
4. In WP(C) No. 65 of 2025, the petitioner for the
assessment year 2022-23 on 22.07.2023 had filed his Income Tax
returns declaring an income of Rs. 4,90,010/- while claiming
exemption under Section 10(26). The petitioner’s case however, was
selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer then issued notices
under Sections 143(2) and 142(1), questioning the source of the cash
deposits, which was replied to by the petitioner, who submitted his
response along with supporting documents. However, the
respondents issued an assessment order dated 15.02.2024 under
Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
treating certain Bank deposits as unexplained income under Section
69A. A Demand Notice was thereafter issued under Section 156,
raising a tax demand of Rs. 13,46,02,272/- against the petitioner.
5. It is the case of the writ petitioner that due to inadequate
knowledge of tax procedures and lack of proper advice from his
earlier Chartered Accountant, he was unable to file an appeal within
the prescribed period, and on realizing the urgency of the matter had
then preferred statutory appeals before the Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals) alongwith applications for condonation for delay, and
also for stay of the demand under Section 220(6). In the meantime,
Page 4 of 9
2025:MLHC:517-DB
however, the petitioner’s Bank Accounts were frozen on instructions
from the Income Tax Authorities and were set to be transferred to
the Department. The petitioner as the appeals were yet to be
admitted or delay condoned, has thus approached this Court seeking
to invoke its powers under Article 226 to de-freeze the Bank
Accounts and for other reliefs as noted earlier.
6. Ms. M.L. Gope, learned counsel for the petitioner at the
outset has submitted that a mandamus under Article 226, is being
sought in view of the fact that the appeals challenging the
Assessment Order and Demand Notice, as well as the condonation
of delay applications are still pending consideration, and as the
Income Tax authorities were proceeding with coercive recovery
actions, this Court has been approached for seeking stay on the
recovery proceedings, and for orders to restrain the transfer of funds
from the petitioner’s Bank Accounts, until the disposal of the
statutory appeals.
7. Mr. S. Chetia, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.
2, 3 & 4 (Income Tax Department) however, has challenged the
maintainability of the writ petitions and has submitted that the relief
sought for by the petitioner in the present proceedings under Article
Page 5 of 9
2025:MLHC:517-DB
226 of the Constitution of India, is the same prayed before the
Appellate authority, which is pending adjudication. He further
submits that by filing these instant writ petitions, the petitioner has
initiated two parallel proceedings for the same cause of action, and
is seeking the same relief before two judicial forums i.e. before the
Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) under Section 246A and before
this Court, which is impermissible in law. The learned counsel has
placed reliance on the following judgments in support of this
contention: –
i) AIR 1970 SC 1 Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar vs.
Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat (Para-8)
ii) AIR 1977 SC 898 Jai Singh vs. Union of India
8. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the
respondents that as there is alternative remedy, the writ petitions
should not be entertained and has relied upon the judgment dated
12.11.2024 passed by the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 209 of
2022, wherein the Court did not entertain the writ petition more
particularly as the appeal was filed prior to the writ petition, which
he submits is similar to the present case. He has further contended
that mere filing of an appeal does not constitute stay of demand, and
has resisted the prayer of the petitioner to de-freeze the Accounts by
Page 6 of 9
2025:MLHC:517-DBsubmitting that, whatever amounts present in the Bank Accounts
need to be secured by the respondent authorities and that the said
amount frozen does not amount to even 20% of the demand. He then
concludes his submissions by asserting that there is no merit in these
writ petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed.
9. Mr. M.L. Gope, learned counsel in reply, has submitted
that this Court had been approached only on a limited prayer as the
appeals against the Assessment Order were pending and no fixed
dates given for hearing the matter. This was necessitated, she
submits due to the fact that all the petitioner’s Accounts had been
frozen, which has affected his business adversely, as he is unable to
pay wages or to meet other business expenses. This Court she
submits, had issued orders on these matters being moved, directing
the respondents to not take any coercive actions, but however the
Accounts have not been de-frozen. The learned counsel has renewed
her prayer for de-freezing the Accounts by submitting that the non-
defreezing, amounts to coercive action in spite of the orders of this
Court.
10. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on
examination of the materials placed before us, the fact that these
Page 7 of 9
2025:MLHC:517-DB
instant writ petitions are limited only to prayers for stay of the
recovery proceedings, and not for issuance of a writ of certiorari
against the Assessment Orders are very clear. The short point for
determination is therefore in spite of availing of statutory appeal,
which is pending consideration, whether the petitioner will be
entitled to the prayers made herein.
11. It is settled law that one cannot pursue two remedies in
respect of the same matter, and as such, these two writ petitions were
liable to be not entertained at the threshold itself. However, on
consideration of the fact that specific prayers and submissions had
been made, that the appeals that had been filed were yet to be taken
up as the delay was yet to be condoned, and that the petitioner
admittedly belonged to the Khasi Scheduled Tribe and as such, was
exempted under Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the
interim orders had been passed that the respondents take no coercive
action.
12. These matters being situated thus, and as the appeals
are pending before the Appellate authority, without further
discussion, these writ petitions are disposed of with the directions
that the appeals be taken up by the Commissioner of Taxes
Page 8 of 9
2025:MLHC:517-DB
(Appeals) for consideration most expeditiously and orders passed
thereon, or be finally disposed of within a period of 4(four) weeks
from today. It is further provided that till such time the interim orders
of this Court shall be in operation, and if no orders are forthcoming
in the appeals within the period allowed, the respondents shall issue
appropriate instructions to de-freeze the Bank Accounts of the
petitioner.
13. As ordered above, these writ petitions stand closed and
are accordingly disposed of.
(B. Bhattacharjee) (H.S. Thangkhiew)
Judge Judge
Meghalaya
17.06.2025
"V. Lyndem PS"
Signature Not Verified Page 9 of 9
Digitally signed by
VALENTINO LYNDEM
Date: 2025.06.17 06:08:55 IST