https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287832 Certiorari jurisdiction was treated as unavailable to quash proceedings of a Divisional Officer acting beyond the High Court's original territorial jurisdiction. An appellate income-tax function involving a dispute, evidence and determination of liability was characterised as judicial, but general revenue subordination did not establish a mandatory remedy before the Revenue Board. Delay in making an order under Section 476 was not regarded as a complete jurisdictional defect requiring certiorari, particularly where objections could be raised in the criminal prosecution. Certiorari remained discretionary and was declined. Revision was also unavailable because the Divisional Officer had not acted as an inferior criminal court for purposes of Section 435. en-us Fri, 30 Aug 1912 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 May 2020 12:39:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287832 Certiorari jurisdiction was treated as unavailable to quash proceedings of a Divisional Officer acting beyond the High Court's original territorial jurisdiction. An appellate income-tax function involving a dispute, evidence and determination of liability was characterised as judicial, but general revenue subordination did not establish a mandatory remedy before the Revenue Board. Delay in making an order under Section 476 was not regarded as a complete jurisdictional defect requiring certiorari, particularly where objections could be raised in the criminal prosecution. Certiorari remained discretionary and was declined. Revision was also unavailable because the Divisional Officer had not acted as an inferior criminal court for purposes of Section 435. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Aug 1912 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287832