Writ jurisdiction and abandoned tax grounds: disputed facts barred mandamus where the adjustment issue was not convincingly raised earlier.

Writ relief under article 226 was held inappropriate where the alleged non-consideration of an adjustment ground before the Tribunal turned on a disputed factual question, namely whether the point had in fact been urged. The surrounding conduct, including failure to raise the issue earlier, delay in invoking writ jurisdiction, and the absence of convincing material that the ground was argued, supported the inference that it had been abandoned. On that basis, the controversy was one for the taxing authorities and not a fit case for mandamus. The Court also declined to express any view on the Tribunal's power to review or rectify its orders.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction to require the Tribunal to consider the assessee's ground that the excess profits tax assessments had not been adjusted for variations in capital, and whether the assessee's conduct disentitled it to such relief.

Analysis: The alleged non-consideration of the ground by the Tribunal depended on a disputed question of fact, namely whether that ground had in fact been urged before the Tribunal. The surrounding circumstances, including the assessee's failure to raise the point at earlier stages, the delayed resort to writ proceedings, and the absence of convincing material showing that the point had actually been argued, supported the inference that the ground had likely been abandoned. In such circumstances, the controversy was one for the taxing authorities and not a proper subject for intervention under article 226. The Court also declined to express any opinion on the Tribunal's power to review or rectify its orders.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in granting writ relief, and the assessee was not entitled to mandamus.

---