Writ jurisdiction and disputed legal heir liability under income-tax law require factual resolution through statutory appeal.

A writ petition challenging an assessment order and consequential notices under the Income-tax Act was held not maintainable where the petitioner disputed being the legal heir or legal representative of the deceased assessee. The Court treated the question whether he had intermeddled with, or benefited from, the estate as one involving disputed facts unsuitable for writ jurisdiction, and left the tax liability issue to the statutory appellate forum. It also found no violation of natural justice because notices had been issued and an opportunity was given before completion of assessment. The petitioner was relegated to the appeal remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals).

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging an assessment order and consequential notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961 was maintainable when the petitioner disputed his status as legal heir or legal representative of the deceased assessee and the matter involved disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The challenge centred on the petitioner's claim that he was only a nephew and not the legal heir or legal representative of the deceased assessee. The revenue relied on the statutory scheme governing liability of legal representatives and persons who intermeddle with the estate of the deceased assessee. The Court found that the controversy as to whether the petitioner had benefited from or intermeddled with the estate and whether any tax liability could be fastened on him involved factual questions that could not be examined in writ jurisdiction. The Court also held that there was no violation of natural justice, since notices had been issued and an opportunity had been given before the assessment was completed.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Final Conclusion: The assessment-related challenge failed in writ jurisdiction, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the liability of a person as legal representative or estate intermeddler depends on disputed factual questions, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked and the party must pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---