9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of service of notice of demand on 29th March 1957. Analysis: The case pertains to an income-tax reference concerning the validity of the service of a notice of demand on 29th March 1957. The assessment year in question was 1947-48, and the assessee resided in New Delhi. The Tribunal provided a chronological timeline of events, including the issuance of notices under various sections, culminating in the completion of assessment under section 23(4) on 31st January 1957. Subsequently, a demand notice was sent by registered post but returned with the remark "Left." The notice was then served by affixture on 29th March 1957 in the presence of an Inspector. The assessee contended that the service was defective, and the notice itself was invalid. The Tribunal, however, deemed the service valid under Order V, rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stating that the notice was duly served. The Tribunal's decision was challenged through various appeals, ultimately reaching the High Court. The primary question before the High Court was whether the provisions of Order V, rule 20 were complied with. The Court noted that for substituted service, the summons must be affixed in a conspicuous place in the court-house and at the defendant's last known residence. However, in this case, the requirement of affixing the summons at the court-house was not met. The Court referred to precedents emphasizing the mandatory nature of such requirements and concluded that the substituted service was invalid due to non-compliance with the rules. Therefore, the service of the notice of demand on 29th March 1957 was deemed invalid. In the judgment, Justice Tek Chand highlighted the importance of strict compliance with procedural rules regarding service of notices, emphasizing that failure to adhere to such requirements renders the service invalid. The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of Order V, rule 20, and the application of precedents establishing the mandatory nature of procedural provisions. The judgment serves as a reminder of the significance of procedural accuracy in legal proceedings, particularly concerning service of notices. Chief Justice Falshaw concurred with Justice Tek Chand's analysis and decision, affirming the invalidity of the service of the notice of demand on 29th March 1957. The judgment underscores the critical role of procedural compliance in upholding the integrity and validity of legal processes, ensuring fairness and adherence to established norms.
|
