Prescribed return form must follow statutory rules; court-ordered deviation fell once filing time was extended.

The prescribed income-tax return form is to be fixed by the statutory authority, not by judicial direction, so a High Court could not allow filing in Form Saral 2-D instead of the notified form. Once the competent authority extended the time for filing returns in the prescribed form, the basis for the writ order ceased to exist. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's permission, and assessees who had relied on it were required to file returns in the prescribed form by the extended deadline, thereby restoring the statutory filing regime.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could permit assessees to file income-tax returns in Form Saral 2-D instead of the prescribed forms, and the effect of the subsequent extension of time for filing returns.

Analysis: The prescribed form for filing a return is to be determined by the statutory authority and not by the Court. In view of the extension of time granted for filing returns in the prescribed form, the basis for the High Court's direction did not survive.

Conclusion: The High Court's order permitting filing in Form Saral 2-D was set aside, and assessees who had filed returns pursuant to that order were required to file returns in the prescribed form by the extended date.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in restoring the statutory regime governing the form of returns, while granting consequential time for compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: The choice of return form is a matter for the statutory authority, not for judicial direction, and a contrary writ order cannot stand once compliance time is extended by the competent authority.

---