Pending tax assessment cannot be halted in writ jurisdiction absent jurisdictional error or proof of coercive recovery.

Pending service tax assessment proceedings should not be interrupted in writ jurisdiction merely because the assessee disputes the taxability of some income components, since required records and information may be demanded to complete assessment and the assessee must cooperate. A writ of mandamus will not lie on a bare allegation of coercive recovery without material proof of coercion, threat, or harassment, particularly where the payment was stated to be voluntary under protest and the assessment process remained incomplete. The authority was directed to re-communicate the required records information so the assessment could proceed expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether interference was warranted with pending service tax assessment proceedings and the demand for records and information for completion of assessment; (ii) whether a writ of mandamus should issue on the allegation that tax was being recovered coercively without assessment.

Issue (i): whether interference was warranted with pending service tax assessment proceedings and the demand for records and information for completion of assessment

Analysis: The assessment proceedings were still pending before the competent authority. Where information and records are required for completing the assessment, the assessee is bound to cooperate. The objection that some components of income may ultimately be found non-taxable did not negate the authority's jurisdiction to proceed with assessment. The dispute on taxability was a matter for determination in assessment and did not disclose a total absence of jurisdiction warranting writ interference.

Conclusion: Interference with the assessment process was declined and the challenge to the demand for records was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether a writ of mandamus should issue on the allegation that tax was being recovered coercively without assessment

Analysis: The record did not establish coercion, threat, or harassment in recovering the amount. The payment referred to by the petitioner was treated as voluntary and under protest, which by itself did not prove coercive recovery. The petition was also premature in view of the ongoing assessment process and the absence of the required clearance from the Committee on Disputes.

Conclusion: The request for mandamus was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition did not warrant substantive interference on either ground, though the assessment authority was directed to re-communicate the information and records required so that the assessment could be completed expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: Pending tax assessment proceedings will not be interdicted in writ jurisdiction merely because the assessee disputes taxability of some components, and a mandamus will not issue absent material proof of coercion or harassment, especially where the assessee has not cooperated with the assessment process.

---