Penalty proceedings require affirmative proof of default, and stale delays may justify writ relief despite alternative remedies.

Penalty proceedings under the Income-tax Act are quasi-criminal, so the department must affirmatively prove the alleged default before a penalty can stand. A disbelieved explanation alone is insufficient, and an unexplained inordinate delay in concluding dormant proceedings, together with irrelevant considerations in the order, rendered the penalty unsustainable. The writ petition was also maintainable because an alternative statutory remedy is not an absolute bar to certiorari where it is not efficacious and immediate relief is justified by stale proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the penalty order under the Income-tax Act could be sustained when the proceedings had remained dormant for an inordinately long period and the department had not proved the alleged default. (ii) Whether the writ petition was barred because the petitioner had an alternative remedy by appeal or revision.

Issue (i): Whether the penalty order under the Income-tax Act could be sustained when the proceedings had remained dormant for an inordinately long period and the department had not proved the alleged default.

Analysis: Penalty proceedings are in the nature of criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings, and the burden lies on the department to establish that the assessee has brought himself within the penal provision. A disbelieved explanation does not, by itself, justify penalty. The record did not satisfactorily prove that no return had been filed, while the long and unexplained delay in concluding the matter showed that the proceedings had not been taken within a reasonable time. The extraneous considerations referred to in the penalty order were irrelevant and could not support the levy.

Conclusion: The penalty order was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was barred because the petitioner had an alternative remedy by appeal or revision.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to certiorari. In the circumstances, the statutory remedy was not efficacious, the matter was stale, and insisting on ordinary remedies would only prolong the dispute unnecessarily.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of alternative remedies.

Final Conclusion: The impugned penalty order was quashed and the petitioner obtained relief in writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: In penalty proceedings, the department must affirmatively prove the default, and an alternative statutory remedy does not bar certiorari where it is not efficacious and the interests of justice require immediate relief.

---