Writ interference refused over remand, concurrent findings and restricted review jurisdiction in assessment proceedings

Writ interference was declined because the revision against the remand order did not disclose any jurisdictional error, and the appellate remand had merely directed verification of documents and Form F. Revisional interference was also unwarranted where the Assessing Authority and Appellate Authority had recorded concurrent factual findings. Review was found impermissible because the governing statute allows review only for an error apparent on the face of the record, and the material relied on had not been raised earlier. The challenge to the coal block allocation conditions as ultra vires also failed, as those conditions had not been assailed in the proper forum and no declaration of invalidity had been obtained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's orders dismissing the revision and review petitions, and thereby sustaining the assessment-related directions, suffered from any legal or jurisdictional error warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The challenge was examined on merits. The Court held that the revision against the remand order was not shown to suffer from jurisdictional error, and even on the assumption of maintainability, no ground was made out for interference because the Appellate Authority had only remitted the matter for verification of documents and Form F. As regards the other revision, the Court accepted the Tribunal's view that the concurrent factual findings of the Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authority did not justify revisional interference. The subsequent review was also held to be untenable because review under the governing statute lies only on the basis of an error apparent on the face of the record, and the material sought to be introduced was not shown to have been raised earlier. The contention that the coal block allocation conditions were ultra vires was rejected, since the petitioner had neither challenged those conditions in the proper forum nor obtained any declaration that they were invalid.

Conclusion: No case was made out for interference with the Tribunal's orders, and the challenge failed.

---