Prejudice in assessment from seized books must be shown before writ relief will set aside the order.

Assessment based on seized books was not shown to be vitiated by non-supply of those records before completion of assessment, because validity depends on the facts of each case and on whether real prejudice is proved. Where the assessee contended that the books did not belong to him, the decisive question was whether any alleged irregularity in seizure, custody, or non-return of the books caused prejudice sufficient to render the assessment null and void. The Court found no material to establish such prejudice and held that writ interference was not justified, particularly where an appellate remedy remained available to challenge the assessment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment orders were liable to be quashed on the ground that the books and documents relied upon by the assessing authority were not handed over to the assessee before assessment and that the assessee was thereby denied a fair opportunity.

Analysis: The Court distinguished the earlier decision relied upon by the assessee and held that the validity of an assessment based on seized books depends on the facts of each case and on whether real prejudice is shown. Where the assessee's case is that the books did not belong to him at all, the question is whether he was prejudiced by the non-return of the books or by any alleged infraction in seizure or custody. The Court found no material to hold that the irregularity, if any, rendered the assessment orders null and void. It also noted that an appellate remedy was available and that the assessee could challenge the assessment before the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were not liable to be set aside in writ jurisdiction, and the petitions were dismissed.

---