Writ jurisdiction and reassessment notices cannot bypass statutory tax remedies absent clear lack of jurisdiction.

A writ under Article 226 was held not to lie to quash income-tax reassessment notice merely because it was said to be issued under the wrong version of section 34. The Court held that both the earlier and amended provisions empowered the assessing authority to determine whether income had escaped assessment and to proceed under the statutory machinery, so the alleged defect was not a total want of jurisdiction. As the objection was not apparent on the face of the notice and could be raised before the income-tax authorities, the statutory scheme of objections, appeals and further remedies was the proper course. The challenge to the notice therefore failed at the writ stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ under Article 226 could be issued to quash or prohibit income-tax reassessment proceedings on the ground that the notice was issued under the wrong version of section 34 and that the Income-tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to decide the preliminary facts.

Analysis: The petition challenged a notice for escaped income on the footing that the applicable law was the earlier Patiala Income Tax Act and not the amended provisions that had later been brought into force. The Court held that the difference between the earlier and amended section 34 did not go to the Officer's jurisdiction to issue notice, because both provisions entrusted him with deciding whether income had escaped assessment and with proceeding under the statutory machinery. The Court further held that the alleged defects were not a case of total want of jurisdiction, were not apparent on the face of the notice, and could be raised before the income-tax authorities in the course of assessment. In view of the complete statutory scheme of objections, appeals, reference, and further remedies, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not be invoked.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable for writ relief and the challenge to the notice failed.

Final Conclusion: The statutory income-tax remedies were held to be the proper and adequate course, and the High Court declined to interfere at the notice stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the income-tax statute entrusts the assessing authority with jurisdiction to determine the preliminary facts for issuing notice and provides an adequate appellate machinery, a writ will not lie unless there is a clear total lack of jurisdiction or an error apparent on the face of the record.

---