Writ of prohibition on limitation grounds fails where reassessment jurisdiction turns on disputed facts and need for factual inquiry.

A writ petition to prohibit reassessment proceedings on limitation grounds was not maintainable where the dispute depended on when the remand order was received and whether the reassessment notice fell within the prescribed period under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and Rules. The Court held that such disputed facts could not be resolved on affidavits in writ jurisdiction, and that limitation objections in assessment matters should ordinarily be raised before the assessing authority. A writ of prohibition lies only on a clear showing of total want of jurisdiction, which was not established; the reassessment proceedings were therefore not interdicted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition could be entertained to prohibit reassessment proceedings on the ground that the proceedings were barred by limitation and, therefore, without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The challenge turned on a factual controversy as to when the remand order was received by the assessing authority and whether the reassessment notice was within the period prescribed under Section 21(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the Rules. The Court held that such disputed facts could not be satisfactorily resolved on affidavits in writ proceedings. It further relied on the principle that a plea of limitation in assessment matters is ordinarily to be raised before the assessing authority, and that a writ of prohibition can issue only where a total want of jurisdiction is shown.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at this stage and the reassessment proceedings were not interdicted.

---