Territorial jurisdiction in tax assessments defeats writ relief where the substantive assessment is already unsustainable.

Where the assessment authority lacked territorial or statutory jurisdiction on the facts found, the assessment orders against the railway administration were unsustainable. The revising authority had refused the reference applications on limitation, but the court treated interference with that procedural order as unnecessary because the substantive jurisdictional issue had already been decided against the petitioners. The key point was that no valid order had conferred jurisdiction on the Sales Tax Officer at Gorakhpur, and Gorakhpur had not been declared the principal place of business. As the same jurisdictional defect had already been recognised for the relevant years, writ relief to compel reconsideration of the references was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to writ relief under Article 226 to compel reconsideration of the reference applications, and whether the assessment orders against the railway administration were without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The revising authority had dismissed the reference applications on limitation, but the Court held that interference would serve no useful purpose because the underlying controversy had already been determined against the petitioners. The decisive question was whether the Sales Tax Officer at Gorakhpur had jurisdiction to make the assessments treating the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, as a dealer. The revising authority had found that no order had been made under the relevant rule conferring jurisdiction and that Gorakhpur had not been declared as the principal place of business. The Court also noted that a prior decision on the same jurisdictional question had held that the Gorakhpur Sales Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction, and the factual position for the relevant assessment years was the same.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to writ relief, and the assessment orders were rightly treated as without jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The challenge failed because the assessments were unsustainable on jurisdictional grounds, making the requested reference-related relief unnecessary.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessment authority lacks territorial or statutory jurisdiction on the facts found, a writ court may decline to interfere with a procedural order refusing reference if setting it aside would not alter the substantive result.

---