Writ Jurisdiction should not bypass statutory tax remedies; limitation and protective assessment issues belong to tax authorities.

Article 226 writ jurisdiction cannot be used to pre-empt statutory tax remedies: challenges to notices and assessments are ordinarily for the Income-tax Officer to decide and writs are not maintainable as substitutes for those remedies. A limitation plea must be raised and adjudicated before the tax authorities and cannot be developed afresh in writ proceedings under the circumstances. Contentions that an assessment is merely protective or that others were taxed on the same transactions are factual/evidential matters lacking sworn support and are for the Income-tax Officer to examine; they do not justify setting aside assessment by writ.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee could invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge income-tax notices and the assessment order on the grounds of limitation, alleged invalidity, and protective assessment, instead of raising those objections before the income-tax authorities.

Analysis: The notice was issued in assessment proceedings under section 46(1)(a) of the Saurashtra Income-tax Ordinance, 1949, corresponding to section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The objections sought to be raised-bar of limitation, alleged invalidity of the notice, and the claim that the transactions had already been taxed in the hands of another person-were all matters that should ordinarily be examined by the income-tax authorities on the merits. The writ petition under Article 226 could not be used to bypass the statutory process or to secure an adjudication on issues of fact and mixed questions that had not been properly raised on oath before the assessing authority. The Court also noted that the proceedings appeared to have been used to delay final completion of the assessment.

Conclusion: The writ challenge was not maintainable on the grounds urged, and the assessee failed.

Final Conclusion: The assessment proceedings were left undisturbed and the attempt to invoke writ jurisdiction as a substitute for statutory adjudication was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Objections relating to limitation, validity of notice, and rival taxation of the same income must be raised before the income-tax authorities and cannot ordinarily be entertained in writ proceedings under Article 226 as a substitute for the statutory assessment process.

---