AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice dated October 13, 2003, which asks the petitioner to attend the office of the Deputy Director, Income Tax, Agra, and produce certain books of account of his business and some other material. In our opinion this notice does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner.
It is well settled that writ jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction and it will not be exercised unless the petitioner shows not only violation of law but also that there was some prejudice against him. Merely by showing violation of law he will not succeed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that u/s 131(1A) the officer who issued the notice must show the reason why he has issued the notice, and no such reason has been mentioned in the impugned notice. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion under article 226 of the Constitution in this case, since, in our opinion, the impugned notice causes no prejudice to the petitioner. If the petitioner ,is not doing any business, he can say that to the Income Tax authority.
In Chandra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, vide (para. 42), the Supreme Court held that writ is discretionary remedy and will not be issued unless there is some prejudice to the petitioner. The impugned notice in our opinion causes no prejudice to the petitioner as no adverse order has been passed against him. If and when any adverse order is passed he can challenge it at that stage in the appropriate forum.
The writ petition is dismissed, as premature.