Assessment jurisdiction limits tax recovery demands made through an information letter without hearing.

A communication issued by the SIB directing deposit of tax could not be enforced as a valid assessment order or recovery demand because it was admitted to be only for information. The competent assessing officer alone could carry out assessment proceedings and raise any demand after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. On that basis, the direction to deposit tax was set aside and no recovery could proceed under the impugned communication, while the assessing officer remained free to act in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the communication directing deposit of tax, issued by the SIB unit, could be treated as a valid assessment order or recovery demand, and whether it could be enforced against the petitioner.

Analysis: The impugned communication was admitted in the counter-affidavit to be only for information and not an assessment order. The competent assessing officer alone could undertake assessment proceedings and issue any demand after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing. In view of this admission, the direction to deposit the amount could not be sustained, and no recovery could follow on the basis of the impugned communication.

Conclusion: The direction to deposit tax was set aside, and no recovery could be made in pursuance of the impugned order. The assessing officer was left free to proceed in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded because the impugned demand-like communication was held unenforceable, while the statutory assessment process remained open to be carried out by the proper authority.

Ratio Decidendi: An authority lacking assessment jurisdiction cannot impose a recoverable tax demand by an information letter, and any tax liability must be determined only by the assessing officer after observance of the prescribed hearing requirement.

---