Writ challenge to reassessment notice: delay did not bar relief, but limitation had to be raised before the assessing authority.

Delay and laches did not bar the writ challenge to a pending reassessment notice where the objection was founded on alleged patent lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that such delay does not automatically defeat relief when proceedings remain unfinished. The limitation objection under section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was also held to be a matter for the assessing authority to examine in the first instance, and not for direct determination in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition therefore failed, leaving the assessee to raise the limitation plea before the assessing authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether delay and laches barred the writ petition challenging the reassessment notice. (ii) Whether the objection that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation under section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act could be raised directly in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether delay and laches barred the writ petition challenging the reassessment notice.

Analysis: A writ of prohibition is discretionary, but delay does not automatically bar relief where the challenge is to a patent lack of jurisdiction and the proceedings are still pending. The Court noted that the impugned proceedings had not concluded and that the facts did not justify refusal of relief merely on the ground of delay.

Conclusion: The objection based on delay and laches was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the objection that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation under section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act could be raised directly in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Court held that limitation, when raised against an assessment or reassessment notice issued by the assessing authority, is a matter that lies within the competence of that authority and ought to be urged before it in the first instance. Such a plea was treated as unsuitable for direct adjudication in writ proceedings, especially where the authority had jurisdiction to examine the question on the merits.

Conclusion: The limitation objection could not be entertained in writ proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the Court declined to interfere with the reassessment notice on the grounds urged, and the assessee was left to pursue the objection before the assessing authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will ordinarily not entertain a limitation objection to reassessment when the assessing authority itself is competent to decide it, and delay will not by itself defeat a writ where the challenge is founded on a claimed patent lack of jurisdiction in pending proceedings.

---