HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Khimi Ram v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and another
CMPMO No.11 of 2015 ·
Supplied court judgment; no neutral citation stated
Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the statutory authority, after the Court referred to the alternative income-tax remedy; no costs.
Single Judge · P.S. Rana
1. Facts of the case
Khimi Ram sought, under Article 227, setting aside and stay of the Income Tax Officer, Mandi order dated 4 March 2013. The source records an appeal pending before CIT(A), Shimla.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court identified the special statutory remedy under the Income-tax Act and referred to Union of India v. Major General Srikant Sharma and CIT v. Chabil Dass. Counsel then sought withdrawal. The order does not adjudicate the disputed tax merits.
3. Judicial decision
The petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the alternative statutory authority under the Income-tax Act, 1961. No order as to costs.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
Procedural withdrawal with statutory-forum liberty; the requested quashing and stay were not granted by this order.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.
The existing appeal framed the forum issue
The petitioner sought supervisory intervention while an income-tax appeal was already pending. The Court placed the statutory remedy at the centre of its discussion, referring to the Act as a special enactment. The sequence matters: after that discussion, counsel requested withdrawal. The operative disposal is therefore withdrawal with liberty, rather than a determination that the challenged tax order was substantively correct.
Source: PDF pp.1–2 · PDF pp.1–2
The cited authorities are reported within their source context
The judgment cites Major General Srikant Sharma and Chabil Dass when discussing alternative remedies under Articles 226 and 227. Those citations explain the approach taken in this order. This note does not independently establish the full ratio, qualifications or subsequent treatment of either authority, and does not recast the source discussion as an exceptionless current prohibition on constitutional review.
Source: PDF pp.1–2 · PDF pp.1–2
Liberty is confined to the statutory route actually granted
The express liberty is to approach the alternative statutory authority under the Income-tax Act. The order neither grants the requested stay nor quashes the ITO order, and it does not grant fresh-writ liberty, condone appellate delay or direct a favourable appellate outcome. Any later pursuit of the statutory remedy must be assessed from that proceeding’s own record.
Source: PDF p.2 · PDF p.2
A procedural result is not a tax-merits finding
No assessment year, disputed amount or assessment provision is identified in the two-page source. It would therefore be inappropriate to attribute a specific deduction, jurisdictional tax issue or quantified liability to the Court’s disposal. The absence of a costs order should also not be described as compensation to either party.
Source: PDF pp.1–2 · PDF pp.1–2
Original judgment and subsequent status
Read the original judgment / orderFull original read; every original page visually inspected.
Subsequent case status: Appeal, review, recall and stay status has not been independently confirmed.
About this note
Prepared with AI assistance. Read with the original judgment.
General information. Application depends on the facts, statutory provisions, assessment year and jurisdiction.