Writ relief against reassessment was refused where audit-report and limitation objections were not properly raised or supported.
A writ challenge to reassessment under the Bihar Finance Act was rejected because the audit-report objection had not been raised before the statutory appellate or revisional authorities, and could not be introduced for the first time in writ jurisdiction. The Court also treated the prior appellate and revisional orders as a bar to reopening that contention. A limitation objection to the reassessment notice was likewise declined, as limitation ran from communication of the appellate or revisional order under the proviso to section 24, and there was no material to discredit the Revenue's stand that the revisional order had not been communicated. Discretionary relief under article 226 was further refused in view of suppression of material facts and the availability of statutory remedies.
Issues: (i) Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under section 19(1) of the Bihar Finance Act could be assailed in writ jurisdiction on the ground that they were based on an audit report. (ii) Whether the reassessment notice was liable to be quashed as barred by limitation and whether the petitioner was entitled to relief under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issue (i): Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under section 19(1) of the Bihar Finance Act could be assailed in writ jurisdiction on the ground that they were based on an audit report.
Analysis: The challenge on the audit-report basis was not raised in the appeal or in revision, where the reassessment proceedings had already been upheld with certain modifications. In such circumstances, the petitioner could not, at the stage of writ proceedings, attack the reassessment as lacking jurisdiction on a ground not urged before the statutory authorities. The Court also treated the existence of the appellate and revisional orders as a material bar to reopening that contention in writ jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The challenge on the ground that the reassessment was based on an audit report was rejected and was not available to the petitioner in the writ petition.
Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment notice was liable to be quashed as barred by limitation and whether the petitioner was entitled to relief under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: Under the proviso to section 24 of the Bihar Finance Act, the limitation period for completing reassessment runs from the date of communication of the appellate or revisional order. The Revenue asserted that the revisional order had not been communicated to the assessing authority, and there was no material to discredit that assertion. The Court further held that a limitation objection to a reassessment notice is ordinarily not to be entertained directly under article 226, especially when the statutory machinery under the fiscal enactment is available. The petitioner had also suppressed the filing and dismissal of the revision, which disentitled him to equitable relief.
Conclusion: The limitation challenge was rejected, and discretionary relief under article 226 of the Constitution of India was declined.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the petitioner could not sustain either the audit-report challenge or the limitation objection, and he was not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction in preference to the statutory remedy.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will ordinarily not entertain a challenge to a reassessment notice on limitation or on a ground not raised before the statutory authorities, particularly where the assessee has an adequate statutory remedy and has suppressed material facts.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
