Service of notice within limitation is mandatory for reassessment; mere issuance does not satisfy the statute.

For reassessment under section 35 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, the limitation period runs from the date of service of notice, because the statute makes service within the prescribed time a mandatory jurisdictional requirement. Mere issue of the notice is not enough to satisfy section 35(1). As the notice in this matter was not served within time, the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation and therefore invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 35 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, the relevant date for limitation is the date of issue of notice or the date of service of notice.

Analysis: Section 35(1) required the notice to be served on the person liable to pay tax within the prescribed period. The limitation period was held to be mandatory and jurisdictional, and the language of the provision could not be read as treating mere issuance of notice as sufficient. On the undisputed dates, the notice was not served within time, and the proceedings could not be saved by treating the date of issue as the governing date.

Conclusion: The relevant date is the date of service, not the date of issue. The proceedings were barred by limitation and were invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute requires a notice to be served within a prescribed limitation period, actual service within time is mandatory and mere issuance of the notice does not satisfy the statutory requirement.

---