Alternative remedy and substantive jurisdiction: wrong statutory label did not invalidate the assessment, and writ relief was refused.

Writ relief under Article 226 may be declined where an equally efficacious statutory remedy has already been pursued through appeal, second appeal, and a pending reference. An assessment is not a nullity merely because it was described under the wrong income-tax enactment if the officer had substantive jurisdiction under the applicable statute. The governing test is the existence of lawful power, not the label attached to the order. On that basis, the assessment could be treated as made under the earlier income-tax law, and the appellate remand order remained valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition should be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative statutory remedy by reference was available and had in fact been pursued. (ii) Whether the assessment order made by the Income-tax Officer under the Income-tax Act, 1961 was a nullity, or could be treated as an assessment made under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 so that the appellate order of remand was valid.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition should be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative statutory remedy by reference was available and had in fact been pursued.

Analysis: The petitioners had already availed the remedies of appeal and second appeal, and an application for reference to the High Court was pending. In such circumstances, the existence of an equally efficacious statutory remedy was a material factor in the exercise of writ discretion. The availability of Article 226 relief did not compel interference when the petitioner had already resorted to the statutory appellate channel.

Conclusion: The writ jurisdiction was properly declined on the ground of alternative remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment order made by the Income-tax Officer under the Income-tax Act, 1961 was a nullity, or could be treated as an assessment made under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 so that the appellate order of remand was valid.

Analysis: The assessment year concerned fell under the regime of the earlier Act, and the officer had jurisdiction to assess under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. A wrong reference to the later Act did not by itself render the assessment void where the authority had power to act under the correct enactment. The validity of the act depended on the existence of lawful power, not on the label mistakenly attached to it. On that basis, the appellate authority was competent to treat the assessment as one made under the earlier Act and to remit the matter for fresh assessment.

Conclusion: The assessment was not a nullity, and the remand order was valid.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed because the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and also held that the assessment could be sustained by attributing it to the lawful jurisdiction under the earlier income-tax statute.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an authority has substantive jurisdiction under one enactment, an assessment or order is not invalid merely because it was mistakenly expressed under another provision, and writ relief may be refused when an equally efficacious statutory remedy is available and has been pursued.

---