https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200505 Where lack of jurisdiction is patent on the face of the proceedings, delay in moving under Article 226 does not by itself bar a writ of prohibition, because the court may still restrain an inferior authority that has usurped jurisdiction. A notice issued under section 34 was treated as the first step in reassessment proceedings and as an assumption of jurisdiction by the Income-tax Officer, not a merely administrative act. The objection that the notice was outside the scope of prohibition therefore failed, and the writ was held to lie where reassessment jurisdiction was wrongly assumed. en-us Mon, 05 Mar 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Mar 2018 11:36:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200505 Where lack of jurisdiction is patent on the face of the proceedings, delay in moving under Article 226 does not by itself bar a writ of prohibition, because the court may still restrain an inferior authority that has usurped jurisdiction. A notice issued under section 34 was treated as the first step in reassessment proceedings and as an assumption of jurisdiction by the Income-tax Officer, not a merely administrative act. The objection that the notice was outside the scope of prohibition therefore failed, and the writ was held to lie where reassessment jurisdiction was wrongly assumed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 05 Mar 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200505