Statutory residence definition governed tax recovery, and certiorari remained available despite the suggested appeal remedy.

A statutory term defined by the Income-tax Act was held to control its use throughout the enactment, so the recipient company, already assessed as resident and ordinarily resident, could not be treated as non-resident for recovery under section 18(3B). The court also held that the suggested appeal was not an adequate alternative remedy where the statutory scheme required prior payment or deduction before an appeal could be maintained, and the notice disclosed an error of law on the face of the record. The impugned notice and consequential recovery action were quashed, and enforcement was restrained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the recipient company was a resident or non-resident for the purpose of deduction under section 18(3B) of the Indian Income-tax Act; (ii) Whether the availability of an appeal barred relief in certiorari.

Issue (i): Whether the recipient company was a resident or non-resident for the purpose of deduction under section 18(3B) of the Indian Income-tax Act.

Analysis: The liability under section 18(3B) depended on whether the payee was a person not resident in the taxable territories. The statutory definition in section 4A(c) governed the meaning of residence, and the assessment record showed that the company had already been assessed for the relevant year as resident and ordinarily resident within the taxable territories. In those circumstances, it was inconsistent to treat the same company as non-resident for recovery from the petitioner. The court also rejected the attempt to give the word a different, physical meaning in section 18(3B).

Conclusion: The company was treated as resident, so section 18(3B) did not support the demand against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of an appeal barred relief in certiorari.

Analysis: The suggested appeal under section 30(1A) was not an adequate alternative remedy because the statutory scheme required payment or deduction of the amount as a condition precedent before an appeal could be maintained. The impugned notice also disclosed an error of law on the face of the record, since the authority had proceeded on an erroneous construction of the governing provisions despite the existing assessment record.

Conclusion: The writ remedy was maintainable and the bar of alternative remedy did not apply.

Final Conclusion: The impugned notice and consequential recovery action were quashed, and the respondents were restrained from enforcing them.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory term is defined by the Act, that definition controls its use throughout the enactment unless the context clearly requires otherwise, and certiorari lies where a tax authority proceeds on an erroneous construction of law apparent from the record despite the absence of an adequate alternative remedy.

---