https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8204 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. en-us Tue, 16 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Apr 2009 08:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8204 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 16 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8204