https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38357 A writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable because the challenge was to the jurisdiction to reopen assessment by issuing notices under section 148, and the Act provided no direct effective remedy against those notices; a later appeal against an assessment order was too remote to bar relief. Notices under section 148 were without jurisdiction because the assessee had filed returns that were signed and verified, and an incomplete return is not to be treated as non-existent where the assessment machinery under section 143 was already engaged; the officer had to proceed under the assessment provisions instead of reopening on the footing that no return had been filed. The impugned notices were quashed. en-us Thu, 02 Jun 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:11:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38357 A writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable because the challenge was to the jurisdiction to reopen assessment by issuing notices under section 148, and the Act provided no direct effective remedy against those notices; a later appeal against an assessment order was too remote to bar relief. Notices under section 148 were without jurisdiction because the assessee had filed returns that were signed and verified, and an incomplete return is not to be treated as non-existent where the assessment machinery under section 143 was already engaged; the officer had to proceed under the assessment provisions instead of reopening on the footing that no return had been filed. The impugned notices were quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 02 Jun 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38357