Writ review of statutory discretion denied: recovery may continue pending appeals absent mala fide or jurisdictional error.

Writ relief to restrain tax-recovery was contested on the ground that the Income-tax Officer misdirected his discretion in fixing installments under the Income-tax Act; the court held that mandamus enforces statutory duties but does not substitute judicial control for a statutory discretion and will not re-examine a discretionary tax decision unless exercised mala fide, capriciously, for collateral purposes, or without jurisdiction. Applying these principles, the court found no demonstration of mala fides or jurisdictional error in the officer's exercise of discretion and refused writ interference, dismissing the petition and permitting recovery to proceed while statutory appeals remain available.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus or other writ relief should be issued to restrain the Income-tax Officer from recovering the demand (or declaring the assessee a defaulter) pending disposal of statutory appeals, on the ground that the Income-tax Officer misdirected himself or exercised his discretion improperly in fixing assessment and recovery installments under the Income-tax Act.

Analysis: The Court considered the scope of judicial intervention by writ where a statutory authority has a discretion. The Income-tax Officer applied Section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act and fixed installments and recovery measures; the petitioners challenged the assessment and the exercise of discretion in refusing effective stay of recovery. The Court reviewed authorities establishing that mandamus commands performance of a statutory duty but does not control the manner in which a discretion vested by statute is exercised, and that courts will not re-examine a discretionary decision of a tribunal unless it is exercised mala fide, capriciously, for collateral purposes, or without jurisdiction. The Court found that the Income-tax Officer had exercised the discretion available under the statute, that the exercise was not shown to be mala fide, capricious, or extraneous, and that the correct remedy for challenging the assessment is the statutory appellate process and not writ interference in supervisory jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petition for a writ to restrain recovery is refused and the petition is dismissed; the decision is in favour of the Revenue.

---