Writ jurisdiction and statutory remedy: factual disputes over partnership validity must be raised before the income-tax authority first.

Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate for challenging notices under the Income-tax Act where the dispute turned on factual controversies about the genuineness and validity of a partnership concern. The court noted that the Act provided a complete statutory code with adequate remedies, allowing the assessees to raise all objections before the assessing authority and pursue remedies available in law. In the absence of any special circumstance justifying bypass of that framework, the petitioners were relegated to the statutory remedy before the Income-tax Officer rather than pursuing writ relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised to challenge notices issued under section 186 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or whether the petitioners should be relegated to the statutory remedies before the Income-tax Officer.

Analysis: The petitions concerned notices requiring the assessees to show cause against cancellation of registration, but the controversy turned on factual issues relating to the genuineness and validity of the partnership concern. The statutory scheme under the Act provided a complete code with adequate remedies, and the petitioners could raise all their objections before the assessing authority and pursue the remedies available under law. In such circumstances, writ proceedings were not considered appropriate for adjudicating factual controversies, and no special circumstance was found to justify bypassing the ordinary statutory remedy.

Conclusion: The writ jurisdiction was not exercised, and the petitioners were relegated to pursue their objections and remedies before the concerned Income-tax Officer.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised where an efficacious statutory remedy exists and the dispute involves factual controversies that can appropriately be decided by the competent authority.

---