Writ jurisdiction and rectification notices: debatable objections should be raised before the assessing officer, not quashed at the threshold.

A writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of a proposed rectification notice under Sections 154 and 155 was held premature because the objections raised involved debatable questions and it was not prima facie clear that the notice lacked any apparent mistake. The petitioner had only been asked to appear and be heard before the assessing officer, so the proper course was to pursue that statutory remedy rather than invoke writ jurisdiction at that stage. The notice was therefore not quashed in writ proceedings and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be entertained to quash a notice proposing rectification under Sections 154 and 155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that no mistake apparent from the record existed.

Analysis: The objections raised against the proposed rectification involved debatable questions, and it was not prima facie clear that none of the matters mentioned in the notice constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner had been called only to appear and be heard before the assessing officer, and the Court found that the petitioner ought to have pursued that remedy instead of invoking writ jurisdiction at that stage.

Conclusion: The notice was not liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction at that stage, and the petition was dismissed.

---