Writ petitions based on uncontroverted facts must be examined on merits before recovery of tax arrears is upheld.

A writ petition challenging recovery of tax arrears should not be summarily dismissed where the petition sets out material facts supporting relief and those facts are not denied. The Court noted that the appellant had pleaded attempts to remit tax from Ceylon and that foreign authorities had prevented remittance, making it necessary to examine whether the case fell within the proviso to section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. In such circumstances, the petition had to be admitted and decided on merits; summary dismissal without calling for a return or testing the factual foundation was unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging recovery of tax arrears could be summarily dismissed without examining the appellant's claim under the proviso to section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The appellant asserted facts showing that attempts had been made to remit the tax from Ceylon and that the foreign authorities had not permitted the remittance. Those averments were not denied before the High Court. In such circumstances, the petition disclosed a matter requiring examination on merits, including whether the case fell within the proviso to section 45. The summary dismissal without calling for a return or considering the factual foundation was not justified.

Conclusion: The writ petition could not be dismissed summarily and had to be admitted and decided in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where material factual averments supporting relief are not denied, a writ petition should not be summarily dismissed without merits examination, especially when entitlement depends on applying a statutory proviso to those facts.

---