The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for assessing authorities to afford the assessee an opportunity to show cause against the case on which they propose to assess, in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

1. This batch of 15 writ petitions, invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226. The writ petitioners had been called upon to furnish returns of their agricultural incomes under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, No. XXII of 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Act; and in all the cases, the assessing Officer had again issued notices under S.18 (2), That section provides that, if the Agricultural Income-tax Officer is satisfied that the returns under S.17 are correct, he can assess in writing the total agricultural income of the assessee and determine the sum payable by him on the basis of the returns. Sub-section (2) authorises him, on his not being satisfied, to serve on the person making the returns, a notice requiring him, on the date specified therein, either to attend the office of the Officer, or to produce or to cause to be produced, any evidence, on which such person may rely in support of the returns. The next authorisation to the assessing Officer, is under S.18 (3), which reads as follows:

"On the day specified in the notice under sub-section [2], or as soon as afterwards, as the case may be, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, after considering such evidence as such person may produce and such other evidence as that Officer may require on the specified points, assess the total agricultural income of the assessee and determine the sum payable by him on the basis of such assessment."

Sub-section (4) of S.18 provides for cases where the assessee had made no returns, and therein the Officer is required to make the assessment to the best of his judgment. S.31 of the Act provides for appeals against the assessments to the Assistant Commissioner, but excludes such a right in respect of assessments under S.18 (4). Further rights of appeal are given by S.32 to the Appellate Tribunal within sixty days of the dates, on which the orders of the Assistant Commissioner are communicated to the assessees.

2. The complaint common to all the writ petitions now before us, is that the petitioners, on their evidence in support of their returns being found not satisfactory, have been assessed on grounds, which they had not been given fair opportunity to meet. The learned Advocate of the petitioners has relied on a number of decisions to show that the assessing Officer is bound to afford the assessee an opportunity of showing cause against the case, on which he proposes to assess, after having rejected the materials furnished by the assessee in support of his returns. The proposition of the assessing authorities in this country being bound to proceed in a judicial manner and come to a judicial conclusion upon ascertained facts, is well settled by D. C. Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, A.I.R.. 1955 S.C. 65 and Omar Salay Mohd. v. I. T. Commissioner A.I.R. 1959 S.C.1238. In the latter case, it has been held that the judgment of the Income-tax authority must not be on surmises and conjectures, and the assessee must have fair opportunity for meeting the case, on which he is being assessed; and a recent illustration of the same rule is to be found in Dayaram Surajmall v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 38 I.T.R.12. The petitioners have, therefore, a good case when they complain that the rule of natural justice of being given the opportunity to show cause against the case, has not been observed in assessing them, and their complaints of not knowing the basis, on which they had been assessed, are not challenged. It follows that the petitions should be allowed unless there be other grounds for dismissing them.

3. On behalf of the taxing authorities, it is argued that the petitioners have adequate alternative remedies of appeals, where they can urge their complaints, and the jurisdiction under Art.226 should not be exercised in their favour. The legal position is well settled that the presence of adequate statutory relief, bars the exercise of jurisdiction under Art.226; but it is equally well settled that person