Writ review of tax assessments cannot bypass appeal remedies where jurisdiction exists and liability basis is disclosed.

An assessment order was not liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction merely because it did not cite the precise statutory provision or record reasons for applying the maximum rate of tax, where the order otherwise disclosed the income assessed and the tax demand. The omission was not treated as an error of law apparent on the face of the record, and Article 226 could not be used to bypass the Income Tax Act's appellate machinery. On the wakf income issue, the appellate direction required segregation of income but did not bind the officer to adopt exact figures from the appellate order, so no enforceable violation was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an assessment order could be quashed in writ jurisdiction for not stating the specific statutory provision relied on or the reasons for applying the maximum rate of tax; (ii) Whether the Income Tax Officer acted in violation of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's directions by determining the wakf income at figures higher than those mentioned in the appellate order.

Issue (i): Whether an assessment order could be quashed in writ jurisdiction for not stating the specific statutory provision relied on or the reasons for applying the maximum rate of tax.

Analysis: The assessments for the relevant years disclosed the income and the tax demand, and the Court treated that as a sufficient determination under the Act. The statute did not require the Income Tax Officer to specify in the order the precise section under which the assessment was made or to record reasons for applying the maximum rate. Omission to mention the provision or to set out reasons, where jurisdiction otherwise existed, did not amount to an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Court also held that the petitioner could not invoke Article 226 to bypass the appellate machinery provided by the Income Tax Act.

Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment orders on the ground of absence of stated reasons or statutory reference failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Income Tax Officer acted in violation of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's directions by determining the wakf income at figures higher than those mentioned in the appellate order.

Analysis: The appellate order directed separation of the wakf income from the individual assessment, but it did not fix the income for the subsequent years at the figures mentioned by the appellant. In the absence of a binding direction to adopt those exact amounts, the Income Tax Officer was competent to determine the income for assessment purposes. Even if a higher figure had been adopted, that circumstance would not by itself establish an error of law apparent on the face of the record warranting certiorari.

Conclusion: No enforceable violation of the appellate order was established.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was misconceived, the assessment orders were not liable to be quashed under Article 226, and the dismissal of the challenge was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the taxing authority has jurisdiction and the assessment order discloses the basis of liability, the omission to cite the precise provision or record reasons does not create an error of law apparent on the face of the record, and writ jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent the statutory appellate remedy.

---