Finality of assessment orders bars collateral writ challenge; refund denied where assessee participated and delayed the claim.

An assessment and appellate order that have already attained finality after an unsuccessful statutory challenge cannot be assailed collaterally through a writ petition under article 226. The Court also held that refund of super-tax was not warranted where the assessee had participated in the assessment proceedings pursuant to notices under section 23A and later complained of lack of notice. The delay in bringing the refund claim further weighed against relief. On these grounds, the challenge to the assessment and the prayer for refund were rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the petitioner's earlier statutory challenge to the assessment having failed and the questions having remained unanswered; (ii) whether refund of the super-tax could be directed on the ground that the levy was without authority of law for want of notice to the petitioner.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the petitioner's earlier statutory challenge to the assessment having failed and the questions having remained unanswered.

Analysis: The earlier reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, having been held not maintainable, the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer and the appellate order were left undisturbed and attained finality. The Court treated the effect of that decision as governing the rights of the parties and held that the same orders could not be challenged collaterally by a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on this ground and the objection was against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether refund of the super-tax could be directed on the ground that the levy was without authority of law for want of notice to the petitioner.

Analysis: Although taxes collected without authority of law may ordinarily be refundable, the Court found that the petitioner had appeared in the assessment proceedings pursuant to notices issued under section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and could not later complain of absence of notice. The Court also relied on the delay between the collection and the filing of the writ petition and held that the claim for refund could not be sustained in these circumstances.

Conclusion: Refund was not directed and the contention was against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment and the prayer for refund were both rejected, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessment and appellate order have attained finality after failure of the statutory challenge, they cannot be assailed through a writ petition, and refund for alleged unlawful tax collection will not be granted when the assessee participated in the proceedings and the claim is delayed.

---