Writ of Prohibition and VAT penalty notices fail where the assessing authority had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings.

A writ of prohibition lies only where an assessing authority acts without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in clear breach of law. Here, notices issued under the value added tax penalty provisions were challenged on the ground that the authority lacked jurisdiction and that a cash memo need not state the purchaser's name and address. The HC found the assessing authority was competent to initiate the proceedings, and held that the objection raised a factual and interpretative dispute that could be explained before that authority. As the jurisdictional basis for prohibition was absent, the challenge to the notices failed and no writ of prohibition was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of prohibition could be issued to restrain the assessing authority from proceeding on notices issued under the value added tax law on the ground that the authority lacked jurisdiction and that the cash memo was not required to mention the purchaser's name and address.

Analysis: The writ of prohibition is available only where the authority acts without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in clear contravention of law. The notices in question were issued under the penalty provisions for an alleged breach of the requirement relating to particulars in sale documents. The Court found that the assessing authority was competent to issue the notices and that the objection raised by the petitioner about the necessity of mentioning the purchaser's name and address in a cash memo raised a factual and interpretative dispute that could be explained before the authority itself. Since the authority had jurisdiction to initiate the proceeding, the foundation for prohibition failed.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to a writ of prohibition, and the challenge to the notices failed.

---