Mandamus cannot control tax recovery discretion when statutory appeal is available and no mala fides are shown.

Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 made payment of assessed tax mandatory, while the Income-tax Officer's discretion was limited to treating an assessee as not in default during the pendency of an appeal. A writ of mandamus could compel performance of a legal duty, but not direct how a lawful discretion must be exercised. Where the assessment was already under statutory challenge, the proper course was to pursue that remedy; absent mala fides, caprice, or extraneous considerations, writ relief to stop recovery was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to compel the Income-tax Officer to stay recovery of tax and refrain from treating the assessee as a defaulter under the Income-tax Act, 1922, on the ground that the assessment was under challenge and the officer had allegedly exercised his discretion improperly.

Analysis: The power under Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, made payment of the assessed tax mandatory, while the discretion vested in the Income-tax Officer was confined to treating the assessee as not being in default during the pendency of an appeal. A writ of mandamus lies to compel performance of a duty, but not to control the manner in which a lawful discretion is exercised. The assessment order had already been made and challenged through the statutory appellate machinery, and the proper course was to pursue that remedy rather than invoke writ jurisdiction. No sufficient basis was found to hold that the officer acted mala fide, capriciously, or on extraneous considerations.

Conclusion: The writ could not be issued to compel a stay of recovery or to direct the Income-tax Officer to exercise his discretion in a particular way; the petition failed.

---