1986 (9) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ation under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer, Sambalpur Circle, under rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, directing sale of the property under attachment. Proceedings initiated under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act for recovery of tax for the years 1951-52 to 1958-59 proved abortive, o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tegorically state that demand notices for the years 1951-52 to 1954-55 were at all served. It has further been argued that service of notice on the receiver, who had been appointed by the court during pendency of the writ application filed by the late Biswanath Singh Deo challenging the vesting of the estate, did not amount to service of demand notice on the assessee or on his legal representative .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Revenue has endeavoured to justify the action by referring to various provisions contained in the Income-tax Act and the Second Schedule thereto. Non-service of demand notice goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer initiating the proceeding for recovery of tax. Some other questions urged also require investigation into facts which can appropriately be done only by the orig .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X