https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174779 Protective assessment was held permissible under the Income-tax Act where the identity of the correct assessee remained unresolved and the revenue needed to keep its claim alive against limitation; the assessment was therefore valid in law. Protective recovery on the basis of such a non-final assessment was not permissible, because enforcement on alternative bases risked double recovery and was inconsistent with the taxing scheme. However, relief under Article 226 was refused: although the recovery notices were treated as defective on a protective footing, the Court declined discretionary writ intervention because the amount appeared prima facie payable and interference could prejudice the revenue claim. en-us Thu, 28 Jun 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:39:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174779 Protective assessment was held permissible under the Income-tax Act where the identity of the correct assessee remained unresolved and the revenue needed to keep its claim alive against limitation; the assessment was therefore valid in law. Protective recovery on the basis of such a non-final assessment was not permissible, because enforcement on alternative bases risked double recovery and was inconsistent with the taxing scheme. However, relief under Article 226 was refused: although the recovery notices were treated as defective on a protective footing, the Court declined discretionary writ intervention because the amount appeared prima facie payable and interference could prejudice the revenue claim. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 28 Jun 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174779