Misdescription in tax recovery papers treated as clerical error; jurisdiction to proceed was upheld despite identity challenge.

Writ of prohibition was declined where the assessee claimed the demand was issued against a wrongly described person and the Tax Recovery Officer lacked jurisdiction. The Court treated the difference in the trading name as a clerical misdescription, not a defect going to the root of assessment or recovery, because the business was shown to have been carried on by the petitioner and others at the same place, with the petitioner linked to the unregistered firm. As the identity of the business and partners was established and the department had sufficient information to initiate proceedings, jurisdiction to proceed was upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of prohibition could be issued to restrain recovery proceedings on the ground that the assessment and demand were made against a wrongly described person and that the Tax Recovery Officer lacked jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petitioner's challenge turned on the claim that the assessed business name was different and that he had no connection with the demand. The Court found that the business was carried on by the petitioner and others at the same place during the relevant year, that the petitioner had been associated with the unregistered firm, and that the later examination of a partner did not support the plea of complete disconnect. The misdescription of the trading style was treated as a clerical error, not a defect going to the root of the assessment or recovery. Since the department had genuine information to initiate proceedings and the identity of the business and partners was established, the statutory authority was held to possess jurisdiction to proceed.

Conclusion: The writ of prohibition was not maintainable and the challenge to the recovery proceedings failed.

---