Writ jurisdiction and estate representation in reassessment proceedings: alternative remedy did not bar the petition, while notice validity remained unresolved.

A writ petition challenging coercive recovery based on reassessment of a deceased assessee's estate was held maintainable despite an alternative remedy, because alleged infringement of constitutional rights could justify writ jurisdiction. On the reassessment issue, section 24B made executors or legal representatives liable only to the extent of the estate, and complete representation of the estate was generally required; however, bona fide impleadment of one representative could sometimes suffice. The material was insufficient to decide whether the served executor properly represented the estate or whether the other representatives acquiesced. The High Court order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal on fuller material.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy. (ii) Whether the reassessment and recovery proceedings were vitiated because notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was not served on all executors or legal representatives of the deceased assessee.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

Analysis: The challenge was to coercive recovery proceedings launched on the basis of an assessment said to be made without proper representation of the deceased assessee's estate. The complaint was linked to an alleged infringement of constitutional rights, and the existence of another remedy did not, by itself, bar recourse to writ jurisdiction where such rights were said to be affected.

Conclusion: This objection failed; the writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment and recovery proceedings were vitiated because notice under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was not served on all executors or legal representatives of the deceased assessee.

Analysis: Section 24B made the executor, administrator or other legal representative liable to be assessed and limited such liability to the extent of the estate. Where there are several legal representatives or co-executors, complete representation of the estate is generally required, but the court also noted that bona fide impleadment of one representative may, in appropriate circumstances, sufficiently represent the estate. The record before the court was inadequate to determine whether the executor served had in fact managed or intermeddled with the estate, whether he represented the estate bona fide, and whether the remaining representatives had accepted or acquiesced in that representation. Because these factual questions were unresolved, no final conclusion could be reached on the validity or enforceability of the assessment and recovery steps.

Conclusion: The question could not be finally decided on the material before the court.

Final Conclusion: The order of the High Court was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh disposal after allowing the parties to place further material on record.

---