Clerical slip in tax notification cured by context; prohibition refused where assessment jurisdiction turned on facts.

A notification appointing a Sales Tax Officer as assessing authority was upheld despite a mistaken reference to a repealed Ordinance, because the court read it with the contemporaneous appointment letter and treated the error as a clerical slip reflecting the State's clear intention. The court also held that the statutory power to appoint an assessing authority was not confined to a single circle and could extend to any area in the State, with the Act prevailing over inconsistent rules. A writ of prohibition was refused at the threshold because jurisdiction depended on facts and there was prima facie material supporting assessment jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the notification appointing the Sales Tax Officer as assessing authority was invalid because it referred to the repealed Validation Ordinance and because the State Government lacked power to appoint him for an area extending beyond a single circle; (ii) whether a writ of prohibition could be issued at the threshold on the ground that there was patent want of jurisdiction.

Issue (i): whether the notification appointing the Sales Tax Officer as assessing authority was invalid because it referred to the repealed Validation Ordinance and because the State Government lacked power to appoint him for an area extending beyond a single circle.

Analysis: The notification was construed in the light of the surrounding circumstances and the contemporaneous appointment letter, which clearly showed that the State Government intended to appoint the officer for assessment under the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956. The mistaken reference to the Ordinance was treated as a draftsman's slip, and the notification was read so as to give effect to the manifest intention of the Government. The Court further held that the power under section 2(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act to authorize a person as an assessing authority was not confined by the territorial scheme of the rules governing the posting of Sales Tax Officers to circles. The statutory power to appoint an assessing authority extended to any area in the State, and section 2(a) prevailed to the extent of any inconsistency with the rules.

Conclusion: The notification was valid and the challenge to the competence of the assessing authority failed.

Issue (ii): whether a writ of prohibition could be issued at the threshold on the ground that there was patent want of jurisdiction.

Analysis: A writ of prohibition is meant to restrain a quasi-judicial authority from acting beyond jurisdiction, but where jurisdiction depends on disputed facts the Court ordinarily should not interfere before the authority has examined the matter. Here there was material showing prima facie jurisdiction, including the respondents' own registration as dealers under section 8A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and their prior tax returns and payments. In these circumstances there was no patent absence of jurisdiction, and the respondents could raise their defence before the assessing authority by filing returns and producing accounts.

Conclusion: No writ of prohibition could be issued at the threshold.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the writ petitions failed, and the notices issued by the Sales Tax Officer were allowed to stand for adjudication in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A notification must be construed to effectuate the clear intention of the authority where the wording contains an obvious clerical slip, and a writ of prohibition will not issue at the threshold when jurisdiction depends on facts and there is prima facie material supporting jurisdiction.

---