Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, and not High Cour is the proper course

1. The Commissioner issued a notice u/s 33B of the 1922 Act to the assessee. Three copies of the notice were sent to the three different places of business of the assessee on the addresses furnished by the assessee in the return filed. The notice were also affixed at the two places on the addresses given by the assessee. On the date of hearing fixed none appeared on behalf of the assessee.

2. The Commissioner cancelled the assessment order and directed the ITO to make fresh assessment in accordance with law after fresh enquiries and investigation.

3. On writ, the High Court set aside the order of the Commissioner. On appeal under the letters patent by the revenue, the High Court held that the notice addressed to the assessee was properly served and the assessee had opportunity of being heard as required under section 33B of the 1922 Act, and set aside the order of the Single Bench.

4. On appeal the Supreme Court held as under:The Income-tax Act provides a complete and self-contained machinery for obtaining relief against improper action taken by the departmental authorities, and normally the party feeling himself aggrieved by such action cannot be permitted to refuse to have recourse to that machinery and to approach the High Court directly against the action. The assessee had an adequate remedy under the Income-tax Act which he could have availed of. He, however, did not move the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which was competent to decide all questions of fact and law which the assessee could have raised in the appeal including the grievance that he had not adequate opportunity of making his representation and invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. In our judgment no adequate ground was made out for entertaining the petition. A writ of certiorari is discretionary ; it is not issued merely because it is lawful to do so. Where the party feeling aggrieved by an order of an authority under the Income-tax Act has an adequate alternative remedy which he may resort to against the improper action of the authority and he does not avail himself of that remedy the High Court will require a strong case to be made out for entertaining a petition for a writ. Where the aggrieved party has an alternative remedy the High Court would be slow to entertain a petition challenging an order of a taxing authority which is, ex facie, with jurisdiction. A petition for a writ of certiorari may lie to the High Court, where the order is on the face of it erroneous or raises the question of jurisdiction or of infringement of fundamental rights of the petitioner. The present case was one in which the jurisdiction of the High Court could not be invoked.The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.