Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an application by Firm Rasulji Buxji Kathawala against the Income-tax Commissioner, Delhi, and the Seventh Additional Income Tax Officer, Ajmer, holding his office at Udaipur, and also designated as Income Tax Officer, A Ward, Udaipur, under Art. 226 of the Consitution, for a writ in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order.

2. The case of the applicant is that it is a registered firm carrying on business of manufacturing and selling Kattha at Udaipur. The Income-Tax Officer, Ajmer, served a notice on the applicant on the 19th of March, 1954, under sec. 34 of the Income Tax Act calling upon him to make a return of his income for the assessment year 1945-46 on the ground that certain income had escaped assessment. The proceedings were later transferred to the Income-Tax Officer, A Ward, Udaipur, who was also designated as Seventh Additional Income Tax Officer. Ajmer. In pursuance of this notice, the applicant filed his return on the 10th March, 1955. At the same time, he took the objection that the Income Tax Officer Ajmer, who had issued the notice under sec. 34, had no jurisdiction to do so, and therefore, no proceedings could be taken against him, The Income tax Officer overruled this objection, and proceeded to assess the applicant, and actually passed assessment order on the 15th of March, 1955, by which the applicant was ordered to pay Rs. 94,098/- as income-tax. It may be mentioned that the applicant has filed an appeal against this order which is pending before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. He has also come to this Court under Art. 226 at the same time, and prays that this Court should interfere on three main grounds, namely—

(1) that the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, who issued the notice, had no jurisdiction under sec. 64 of the Income-tax Act to issue such a notice to the applicant ;

(2) that it was incumbent on the Income-tax Officer to refer the dispute as to the place of assessment under sec. 64(3) of the Income tax Act, and as that was not done, the Income tax Officer could not proceed further ; and

(3) that there was no income-tax in Mewar in 1945-46, and the Income-tax Act, 1922 did not apply to the State of Mewar, and consequently the applicant was not liable to pay income tax on the income accrued to him in the year 1945-46.

3. The application has been opposed on behalf of the opposite parties, and their main pleas with respect to these three points are that the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, had jurisdiction to issue the notice and that, in any case, the objection as to jurisdiction had to be raised at the latest by the 1st of May, 1954, which was the date on which the applicant had to file his return according to the notice issued to him, and as that was not done, that objection could not be entertained in view of the second proviso to sec. 64(3) It is also urged that as the applicant did not raise his objection as to the jurisdiction of that particular Income-tax Officer within time, it was not incumbent upon him to refer the question of jurisdiction to the Income tax Commissioner under sec. 64(3). Further, it is urged that the question whether the applicant is chargeable with income-tax amounts to a denial of his liability to be assessed under the Act, and he could file an appeal under sec 30 of the Income-tax Act, and he has done so. This Court therefore should not at this stage exercise its extraordinary powers in favour of the applicant.

4. We shall first consider the objection as to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Ajmer, who issued notice under sec. 34. Sec. 64 provides for the place of assessment, and when the applicant is raising the question of jurisdiction, he is relying on the provisions of sec. 64. Sub sec. (1) of sec. 64 provides that where an assessee carries on a business, profession or vocation at any place, he shall be assessed by the Income-tax Officer of the area in which that place is situate, or, whe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document