Writ interference with reassessment notices is limited where exemption claims turn on disputed facts and statutory adjudication must proceed.

Interference under Article 226 with notices proposing reassessment and penalty under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is confined to exceptional cases of lack or excess of jurisdiction. Where the challenge is based on exemption entitlement and depends on disputed facts, the assessing authority must examine the assessee's materials and objections in the first instance, and writ proceedings are not the proper forum for conclusive fact-finding. A mere apprehension of delay does not justify bypassing the statutory process. The writ petition was therefore not entertained on merits, and the assessee was relegated to the assessment and penalty proceedings with an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with notices issued under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 proposing reassessment and penalty, where the dispute turns on entitlement to exemption and involves questions of fact.

Analysis: Interference with statutory notices in writ jurisdiction is warranted only in exceptional cases such as lack of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction. The challenge raised was not founded on any jurisdictional defect in the notices, but on the contention that earlier assessments had proceeded on similar facts and that no change in circumstances justified renewed proceedings. The entitlement to exemption depended on proof of factual eligibility, which had to be examined in the first instance by the assessing authority on the basis of materials produced by the assessee. Such disputed factual questions could not be conclusively resolved in writ proceedings. The Court also held that the apprehension of delay was no ground to bypass the statutory process, and directed that the assessment and penalty proceedings be completed after considering the petitioner's materials and objections and after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory assessment and penalty proceedings.

---