Writ jurisdiction remains open after time-barred appeal dismissal; denial of notice and hearing justified remand of assessment orders.

A writ petition under Article 226 remained maintainable against assessment orders even though the statutory appeals were rejected as time-barred, because dismissal on limitation is not a decision on merits and does not cause merger of the original orders. The High Court also accepted that a credible grievance of non-service of show cause notice and denial of hearing could justify interference where no counter-material displaced that claim. On that basis, the assessment orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for fresh consideration by the assessing authority in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition could be entertained against the assessment orders after the statutory appeals were rejected as time-barred; (ii) Whether the assessment orders were liable to be interfered with for want of opportunity of hearing and non-service of show cause notice, warranting remand.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition could be entertained against the assessment orders after the statutory appeals were rejected as time-barred.

Analysis: The availability of a statutory appeal and the rejection of that appeal on limitation do not, by themselves, bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A dismissal of the appeal only on limitation does not amount to an adjudication on merits, and the original assessment order does not merge with such a dismissal. Where sufficient grounds exist for judicial review, the High Court can examine the original order notwithstanding the failure of the delayed appeal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and could be entertained against the assessment orders.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment orders were liable to be interfered with for want of opportunity of hearing and non-service of show cause notice, warranting remand.

Analysis: The appellate authorities accepted the explanation for delay but could not condone it because the statute did not permit extension beyond the prescribed limit. On the merits, the petitioner asserted non-service of notice and absence of hearing, and there was no counter-material to displace that grievance. In these circumstances, the assessment orders were found to require reconsideration by the assessing authority in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The High Court held that the writ remedy remained available despite the time-barred appeals and ordered fresh adjudication by the assessing authority because the case raised a viable grievance of denial of hearing and defective notice.

Ratio Decidendi: Rejection of a statutory appeal solely on limitation does not bar writ scrutiny of the original order, and where denial of notice or hearing is credibly alleged, the assessment may be set aside and remitted for fresh decision.

---