Writ jurisdiction and tax reassessment remain available where definite information shows escaped income despite alternative remedies.

An alternative statutory appeal does not by itself exclude writ jurisdiction where lack or excess of jurisdiction is alleged, so prohibition can still issue. The continuance of the Cochin and Travancore income-tax laws under the Finance Act and constitutional saving provision was read broadly to preserve levy, assessment, collection and the machinery of re-assessment for the relevant periods. Reopening was also sustained because the officer acted on definite information leading to discovery of escaped or under-assessed income; the fact that the material came from another departmental source or was under appeal did not destroy its character as definite information.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions for prohibition because the income-tax enactments provided an alternative appellate remedy; (ii) whether the continuance of the Cochin and Travancore income-tax laws by the Finance Act and the constitutional provision sustained proceedings for re-assessment, including re-assessment of income already assessed; (iii) whether the notices for reopening were supported by definite information leading to a discovery of escaped or under-assessed income.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions for prohibition because the income-tax enactments provided an alternative appellate remedy.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not, by itself, take away the power to issue a writ of prohibition where lack or excess of jurisdiction is alleged. The availability of appeal or reference under the tax law does not create a bar to judicial control over an inferior authority acting without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability failed and the writ jurisdiction was not excluded.

Issue (ii): Whether the continuance of the Cochin and Travancore income-tax laws by the Finance Act and the constitutional provision sustained proceedings for re-assessment, including re-assessment of income already assessed.

Analysis: The combined effect of the constitutional saving provision and section 13 of the Indian Finance Act, 1950, kept alive the operation of the Cochin and Travancore income-tax laws for levy, assessment and collection in respect of the relevant periods. Those expressions were construed broadly enough to include the process of re-assessment, since re-assessment is part of the machinery by which tax is ascertained, demanded and realised.

Conclusion: The proceedings for re-assessment were held to be within jurisdiction and authorised by law.

Issue (iii): Whether the notices for reopening were supported by definite information leading to a discovery of escaped or under-assessed income.

Analysis: The statutory condition for reopening required definite information in consequence of which the officer discovered escaped or under-assessed income. On a careful examination of the material relied upon, the Court found that the officer had such definite information. The fact that the material was under appeal, or that the Kottayam officer derived the information from another departmental officer, did not negate its character as definite information. The material also disclosed a pattern relevant to the earlier assessment years.

Conclusion: The notices were validly issued on the basis of definite information and the reopening requirement was satisfied.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed on all substantive grounds, and the proceedings for re-assessment were upheld as lawful and within the authority of the tax officers.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ of prohibition is not barred merely because a tax statute provides an alternative remedy, and re-assessment proceedings are valid where the statute continues to operate and the officer acts on definite information leading to a discovery of escaped or under-assessed income.

---