Writ remedy and deleted notification: reassessment based on a lapsed explanatory provision was held invalid.

A challenge to the validity and operative effect of a statutory notification is not ordinarily barred by the existence of an alternate statutory remedy, because departmental appellate authorities cannot effectively test the legality of the notification itself. The writ petitions were therefore maintainable. The court also held that reassessment based on an explanatory provision deleted by a later notification, without any saving clause, could not be sustained after the deletion took effect. The notice and reassessment order were consequently without legal authority and invalid, and the assessee was entitled to relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions could be rejected on the ground of availability of an alternate statutory remedy when the challenge was to the validity and effect of a notification; (ii) whether the reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of an explanation deleted by a later notification were without jurisdiction and contrary to law.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions could be rejected on the ground of availability of an alternate statutory remedy when the challenge was to the validity and effect of a notification.

Analysis: A challenge to the legality of a statutory provision, rule, or notification cannot ordinarily be effectively adjudicated by departmental appellate authorities. The existence of an alternate remedy therefore does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction where the grievance is against the validity or operative effect of the notification itself. On that footing, dismissal of the writ petitions solely on alternate remedy was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of an explanation deleted by a later notification were without jurisdiction and contrary to law.

Analysis: The notification containing the explanation relied upon for reassessment had been deleted without any saving clause. Once the explanatory provision was deleted, it ceased to have operative force, and no proceeding could validly be founded upon it unless the deletion was saved expressly. Accordingly, the notice and reassessment order issued after deletion of the explanation were based on a provision that was no longer in existence and were therefore without legal authority.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were held to be without jurisdiction and invalid.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the reassessment order as well as the order dismissing the writ petitions were set aside, leaving the assessee entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory notification or explanatory provision is deleted without a saving clause, proceedings founded upon it cannot be sustained thereafter, and a writ petition challenging such action is not barred merely because an alternate statutory remedy exists.

---