Statutory jurisdiction in assessment proceedings survives administrative transfer instructions, and writ interference is unwarranted without manifest injustice.

Statutory jurisdiction of an assessment authority is not lost merely because earlier proceedings were administratively indicated to be completed by another officer. The Punjab HC treated the transfer arrangement as not displacing the respondent's competence to continue and complete the assessment. It also noted that complaints about opportunity to produce books or other procedural irregularities were matters for the statutory appellate or revisional remedies, and writ interference was not justified because no manifest injustice or grave legal infirmity was shown. On that basis, the assessment proceedings were allowed to continue and the petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent had jurisdiction to continue and complete the assessment proceedings, and whether interference under writ jurisdiction was justified.

Analysis: The assessment authority's jurisdiction was held to be conferred by statute and not taken away merely because the proceedings had earlier been indicated to be finalised by another officer. The earlier decision did not lay down that only one named officer alone could proceed with the assessment, and the Court treated the transfer arrangement as not destroying the respondent's inherent jurisdiction. The Court further noted that any grievance regarding opportunity to produce books or irregularity in the assessment process could be pursued through the statutory appellate or revisional machinery, and no manifest injustice or grave legal infirmity was shown to warrant writ interference.

Conclusion: The respondent had jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment, and the writ petition failed.

Final Conclusion: No jurisdictional defect or comparable ground for supervisory interference was made out, so the assessment proceedings were allowed to continue and the petition stood rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory jurisdiction of an assessment authority is not lost merely because proceedings were administratively indicated to be finalised by another competent officer, and writ interference is unwarranted where effective statutory remedies exist and no manifest injustice is shown.

---