Inspection proceedings not quashed in writ jurisdiction; jurisdictional objections may be raised before the assessing officer.

A writ of certiorari was refused against the surprise inspection report, seizure mahazar and statement recorded from the dealer, because the materials were seized from the business premises and the jurisdictional objection could be raised before the assessing officer. The court held that the legality of the inspection and the statement should not be finally examined in writ proceedings at that stage. It also noted that the assessment authority cannot rely solely on a statement recorded by enforcement officials. The challenge to the inspection proceedings was therefore rejected, while the dealer was left free to raise the objection in the assessment process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the surprise inspection report, seizure mahazar and statement recorded from the dealer were liable to be quashed on the ground that the inspecting officer lacked jurisdiction.

Analysis: The writ court held that a writ of certiorari would not lie to quash the inspection report, seizure mahazar or the statement at that stage. It noted that the records were seized from the petitioner's place of business and that any objection to the statement or the legality of the inspection could be raised before the assessing officer. The court also observed that the assessment authority cannot be guided solely by the statement recorded by enforcement officials. In view of the claimed delegation of power and the availability of statutory challenge at the assessment stage, the jurisdictional objection was not examined finally in writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The challenge to the inspection proceedings was rejected and the matter was left open to be urged before the assessing officer.

---