Writ interference with sales tax notice refused where dealer's liability turned on factual enquiry into business nature.

Writ interference was not justified against a notice under section 12(5) where sales tax liability depended on the actual nature of the dealer's business. The question could not be resolved on pleadings alone and required factual enquiry by the assessing authority into the business carried on and the surrounding circumstances. The notice was only the procedural step for calling for a return and considering objections, and the dealer had to be given an opportunity to file the return, object to the proposal, and explain the materials collected. On that basis, the challenge to the notice failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court should interfere with a notice issued under section 12(5) when the dealer's liability to sales tax depends on the factual determination of the nature of business carried on.

Analysis: The liability of the petitioner could not be decided merely on the pleadings because it turned on the actual nature of the business carried on. That question required enquiry into facts and circumstances by the assessing authority. The notice under section 12(5) was only the step by which the authority proposed to call for the return and examine objections, and the petitioner was to be given an opportunity to file the return, raise objections, and explain the materials collected.

Conclusion: The notice did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction and the challenge to it failed.

---