Valid service of statutory demand notice is jurisdictional; recovery proceedings failed where service before initiation was not proved.

The challenge to certificate proceedings was maintainable because it went to the Certificate Officer's jurisdiction, and the availability of appeal and revision under the recovery statute did not bar examination of that defect. The Tribunal found no valid proof that the statutory demand notices in Form VII were served: there was no acknowledgment card for two assessments, and the acknowledgment produced for the third did not bear the applicant's address. A properly addressed notice alone did not establish service, and no presumption of service arose on the facts. The recovery proceedings were therefore unsustainable and the impugned notices were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application was barred for non-exhaustion of statutory remedies under the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, and whether the certificate proceedings were without jurisdiction for want of valid service of the demand notices in form VII.

Analysis: The objection based on section 8(3)(b) of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 was rejected because the challenge went to the very jurisdiction of the Certificate Officer to start the proceedings. The availability of appeal and revision under sections 51 and 53 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 did not preclude examination of a jurisdictional defect where the applicant alleged non-service of the statutory demand notices. On the facts, there was no acknowledgement card for two of the assessments, and the acknowledgement produced for the third did not bear the applicant's address. A properly addressed notice could not by itself establish valid service, and no legal presumption arose to prove service on the applicant at the stated business premises.

Conclusion: The certificate proceedings were held to be unsustainable for want of proof of valid service of the demand notices and the challenge was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings initiated for recovery were quashed, and the impugned notices were set aside on the ground that the statutory precondition for valid initiation had not been established.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the very initiation of certificate proceedings depends on prior service of the statutory demand notice, absence of proof of such service deprives the recovery authority of jurisdiction, and the availability of ordinary statutory remedies does not bar direct challenge to that jurisdictional defect.

---