Writ interference and tax recovery notice procedure: statutory appeals barred challenge to assessment, and rule 73 notice was upheld.

Availability of statutory appeals against an assessment order weighed against writ intervention under article 226, and the assessment challenge was not entertained because the petitioner had already invoked appellate and rectification remedies. A show-cause notice under rule 73 of the Second Schedule was treated as a procedural recovery step and was not invalid merely because it did not set out detailed reasons, so long as it identified the arrears certificate and called upon the defaulter to respond. A pending appeal or request under section 220(6) did not automatically stay recovery proceedings, and rejection of stay left the recovery machinery operative.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment order could be quashed in writ jurisdiction when statutory appeals against the assessment and rectification orders were already pending. (ii) Whether a show-cause notice issued under rule 73 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, was invalid for not setting out detailed reasons, and whether a pending request under section 220(6) barred recovery steps.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment order could be quashed in writ jurisdiction when statutory appeals against the assessment and rectification orders were already pending.

Analysis: The existence of effective appellate remedies was material. The petitioner had already invoked the appellate machinery against both the assessment order and the rejection of rectification. In such circumstances, extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not the appropriate forum to challenge the assessment on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment order was not entertainable under article 226 and failed.

Issue (ii): Whether a show-cause notice issued under rule 73 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, was invalid for not setting out detailed reasons, and whether a pending request under section 220(6) barred recovery steps.

Analysis: Rule 73 was treated as a procedural safeguard preceding any order of arrest or detention in civil prison. The notice in question identified the arrears certificate and called upon the defaulter to show cause, which was sufficient compliance at the notice stage. The Court also held that the mere filing of an appeal or a stay request did not automatically suspend recovery proceedings, and rejection of stay left the recovery machinery unaffected.

Conclusion: The notice under rule 73 was valid and the pending section 220(6) request did not prevent recovery action.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition did not disclose any ground for interference, as the assessment challenge was barred by the availability of statutory remedies and the recovery notice was upheld as a valid procedural step.

Ratio Decidendi: A rule 73 show-cause notice is a procedural step in tax recovery and is not invalid merely because it does not recite detailed reasons, and the pendency of an appeal or stay request under section 220(6) does not by itself bar recovery proceedings.

---