Reassessment without statutory notice is void, and civil suit bar does not protect an assessment made wholly without jurisdiction.

A legal representative served with notice can be treated as the assessee for recovery of the deceased's tax liability, and default consequences under the Act may follow if the demand is not met. At the same time, a notice under section 34 is a condition precedent to reassessment of escaped income; without it, the reassessment is a nullity, the consequential recovery certificate is void, and the statutory bar on civil suits under section 67 does not apply to a challenge based on total want of jurisdiction. The text draws the distinction between an irregular exercise of jurisdiction and an ultra vires act.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a legal representative who is assessed in respect of the deceased's tax liability can be treated as an assessee in default for the purpose of recovery under section 46; (ii) whether, in the absence of a notice under section 34, the reassessment was without jurisdiction and the civil suit was barred by section 67.

Issue (i): whether a legal representative who is assessed in respect of the deceased's tax liability can be treated as an assessee in default for the purpose of recovery under section 46.

Analysis: The applicable statutory fiction under section 24B(2) treats the legal representative, on service of notice, as the assessee for purposes of assessment of the deceased's income. The assessment and recovery machinery under the Act extends to such representative, and the default consequences under sections 45 and 46 follow if the demand is not complied with. The earlier assessment and the legal representative's liability therefore cannot be avoided merely because the original assessee had died.

Conclusion: The legal representative was liable to be proceeded against as an assessee in default, and the contrary view was incorrect.

Issue (ii): whether, in the absence of a notice under section 34, the reassessment was without jurisdiction and the civil suit was barred by section 67.

Analysis: A notice under section 34 was a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment of escaped income. In its absence, the assessment was not a mere irregularity but a fundamental defect going to the root of the matter and rendering the assessment and the consequential recovery certificate void. A suit challenging such a nullity was not hit by section 67, because the statutory bar does not protect an order made wholly without jurisdiction. The distinction between a wrongful exercise of jurisdiction and an ultra vires act was central to the determination.

Conclusion: The reassessment was void for want of jurisdiction, and the civil suit was not barred by section 67.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the impugned assessment and recovery proceedings could not be sustained, and the assessee's challenge succeeded on the jurisdictional objection.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory notice is a condition precedent to reassessment, its absence renders the assessment a nullity outside the protection of a bar against civil suits; such a void assessment does not oust civil court jurisdiction.

---