Jharkhand High Court permits withdrawal of writ petition where alternate appeal remedy available and directs revenue to furnish unserved order

Background of the dispute

The matter arose before the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Bhardwaj Steels Private Limited Vs PCIT, relating to assessment year 2020–21. The controversy centred around a penalty proceeding under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and the assessee’s grievance that a crucial penalty order had neither been uploaded on the income tax portal nor served in any other lawful manner.

During the hearing, it emerged that the penalty proceedings had culminated in:

• An earlier order dated 30.11.2022 passed under Section 272A(1)(d), and
• A subsequent revised order dated 06.02.2026 for the same assessment year 2020–21.

The assessee approached the High Court under writ jurisdiction essentially on the premise that the penalty order dated 30.11.2022 was not made available to it and, therefore, it was unable to effectively challenge or respond to it through the statutory appellate channel.

Core issue before the High Court

The key issues that emerged were:

1. Whether the writ petition should be entertained when a revised order dated 06.02.2026 had already been passed, providing the assessee with an alternate statutory remedy of appeal; and
2. Whether the Court should intervene to ensure that the assessee receives a copy of the earlier order dated 30.11.2022 under Section 272A(1)(d) which was allegedly neither uploaded nor served.

The case thus turned primarily on availability of an alternative efficacious remedy and the right of the assessee to obtain copies of orders affecting its legal rights.

Submissions on behalf of the assessee

Learned counsel for the assessee, Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, made the following key submissions:

• The writ petition related to assessment year 2020–21, for which penalty proceedings under Section 272A(1)(d) had been initiated.
• A penalty order dated 30.11.2022 under Section 272A(1)(d) was referred to by the revenue, but according to the assessee, this order:
  • Had not been uploaded on the income tax e-filing portal; and
  • Had not been served on the assessee through any other recognized mode.
• During the pendency of the writ, a revised order dated 06.02.2026 had been passed by the competent authority, thereby changing the factual and legal position.
• Considering the revised order, counsel for the assessee, on instructions, stated that the assessee no longer wished to press the writ petition.
• Instead, the assessee sought:
  1. Liberty to challenge the revised order dated 06.02.2026 by filing a statutory appeal under the Income Tax Act 1961; and
  2. Directions to the department to provide a copy of the earlier order dated 30.11.2022 under Section 272A(1)(d), so that the assessee could also avail appellate remedies against that order, if so advised.

In essence, the assessee chose to abandon the writ remedy and pursue the statutory appellate route, conditional upon being supplied with the allegedly unserved order of 30.11.2022.

Submissions on behalf of the revenue

Counsel appearing for the income tax department opposed the factual assertions made by the assessee but took a fair stand on the issue of providing the order copy. The department’s counsel submitted: