Writ of prohibition can restrain assessment proceedings when lack of jurisdiction or limitation is apparent on admitted facts.

A writ of prohibition under article 226 may restrain assessment proceedings where the authority's lack of jurisdiction is apparent on admitted facts or on the face of the record, including on a limitation objection. Where limitation depends on disputed facts requiring statutory adjudication, the writ remedy is generally not appropriate. On the materials discussed, the alleged factual disputes did not require further investigation at the threshold, and a prima facie case for restraint was shown. The writ petition was therefore maintainable and the preliminary objection to maintainability was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition was maintainable to restrain the Wealth-tax Officer from continuing assessment proceedings on the ground that they were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The legal position applied was that a writ of prohibition or a direction in the nature of prohibition can issue where, on admitted facts or facts found by the authority, the authority lacks jurisdiction to proceed. The Court distinguished cases where limitation depends on disputed facts and must be raised before the statutory forum from cases where the bar is apparent on the face of the record or can be tested without factual investigation. On the materials before it, the alleged disputes did not require adjudication for deciding the preliminary objection, and the petitioners had made out a prima facie case for restraint against continuation of the assessment proceedings.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable, and the preliminary objection to its maintainability was rejected in favour of the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ of prohibition may be issued under article 226 to restrain assessment proceedings where the authority's lack of jurisdiction is apparent on admitted facts or on the face of the record, even if the question concerns limitation.

---