Premature writ relief under Article 226 was unavailable before return filing and tax demand, with statutory remedies adequate.

A writ petition under Article 226 was treated as premature where the assessee had not yet filed the return and no tax demand had arisen. A writ of prohibition was held to be unavailable in that situation, and mandamus was also inappropriate because it is not ordinarily issued before the petitioner has taken the step on which the authority's action depends. The court treated the statutory sequence of return, assessment, appeal and further recourse as an adequate ordinary remedy, which Article 226 was not meant to replace. The challenge to the amended explanation was left academic for disposal of the petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ under Article 226 could be issued to restrain enforcement of the sales tax provisions when no return had yet been filed and no demand had been made.

Analysis: The petition was treated as premature because the assessee had not filed the return and no taxing demand had yet arisen. A writ of prohibition was held to be unavailable in such circumstances. The Court also held that mandamus could not be granted, since that writ operates to compel or forbid an act by an authority and is not ordinarily issued before the petitioner has taken the step on which the authority's action depends. The existence of remedies under the statute itself, including return, assessment, appeal, and further recourse, was regarded as an adequate ordinary remedy, and Article 226 was not intended to supplant that procedure. The challenge to the amended explanation was noted, but that question was treated as academic for disposal of the petition.

Conclusion: The writ petition failed and the petitioner was not entitled to relief under Article 226.

---