Writ interference in sales tax assessment refused where statutory authority existed and no patent jurisdictional defect was shown.

Tax authorities acting within the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 had jurisdiction to assess liability and conduct revisional proceedings, and the original assessment remained effective where no appeal was taken and revision was rejected as time-barred. The challenge based on alleged procedural irregularity, absence of authority, breach of natural justice, and violation of Article 265 failed because the levy and collection were under statutory authority. Writ interference under Article 226 was therefore not warranted absent patent lack of jurisdiction or other exceptional grounds, and the petitioners' challenge was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment and connected revisional orders under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 were without jurisdiction, whether the impugned notices and revisional proceedings suffered from breach of the statutory procedure, and whether the petitioners were entitled to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash them.

Analysis: The challenge centred on the alleged absence of authority in the Commercial Tax Officer and the higher tax authorities to determine liability under the Act, the alleged non-compliance with the notice and review procedure under the Rules, and the contention that the original assessment stood displaced by later revisional proceedings. The statutory scheme under sections 3, 3A, 4, 11, 15 and 20 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 showed that the tax authorities had ample power to assess liability and that the order of assessment remained effective when no appeal was taken and the revisional applications were rejected as time-barred. The Court also held that the impugned order of assessment had not been effectively impeached, and that the case did not disclose any breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, or excess of jurisdiction warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. The objection based on Article 265 of the Constitution of India was rejected because the levy and collection were made under statutory authority.

Conclusion: The petitioners failed to establish lack of jurisdiction, procedural illegality, or constitutional infirmity, and the challenge to the tax proceedings was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition could not succeed against the assessment and revisional action under the taxing statute, and the decision was against the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing authority acts within the statutory framework and effective alternative statutory remedies exist or have been unsuccessfully pursued, writ interference is not warranted absent patent lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or other exceptional grounds.

---