Writ review of reassessment notice requires enquiry where jurisdictional facts are disputed and colourable exercise of power is alleged.

A writ court may examine a challenge to a reopening notice where the petition specifically alleges absence of jurisdictional facts or a colourable exercise of power. If the pleadings, if proved, would show that the authority lacked jurisdiction or was using reassessment as a cloak for a fishing inquiry or review of an earlier assessment, the authority should ordinarily be called upon to answer before the petition is rejected at the threshold. Summary dismissal in limine remains permissible only where the petition is plainly unsustainable or other discretionary grounds, such as delay, acquiescence, alternative remedy, or misrepresentation, are apparent. In disputed jurisdictional matters, the High Court should not refuse relief without enquiry.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing in limine a petition challenging a notice under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act on the ground that the Income-tax Officer lacked jurisdiction and had acted for a collateral purpose.

Analysis: A writ court may interfere where the facts asserted, if proved, would show absence of jurisdiction in the authority issuing the notice. Where the petition specifically alleges non-disclosure was not lacking, and further alleges that the power to reopen assessment was being used as a cloak for a fishing inquiry or for reviewing an earlier assessment, the matter ordinarily calls for an answer from the authority concerned. The High Court's discretionary power to refuse relief in limine remains intact, but such refusal is appropriate only where the petition itself discloses no right to relief or where other sufficient grounds such as delay, acquiescence, adequate alternative remedy, misrepresentation, or other decisive considerations are apparent. In a case turning on disputed jurisdictional facts, the authority must ordinarily be called upon to meet the allegations before the petition is rejected at the threshold.

Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have dismissed the petition in limine without enquiry, and the challenge to the notice warranted investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a petition under article 226 specifically challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts for reopening assessment and raises allegations of colourable exercise of power, the High Court should not summarily reject it without giving the authority an opportunity to answer unless the petition is otherwise plainly unsustainable or other sufficient discretionary grounds exist.

---