Invalid reassessment notice and jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by protest, participation, or alternative appellate remedies.

Reassessment under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 depends on a valid statutory notice, and the notice must allow the minimum time prescribed by section 22(2). A notice giving less than that period is not a mere irregularity; it is invalid and deprives the reassessment proceedings of jurisdiction. Filing a return under protest and participating in the proceedings does not amount to waiver of the statutory defect. The availability of appellate remedies and delay do not bar relief under article 226 where the jurisdictional defect is apparent on the face of the record.

---

---

Issues: Whether a notice issued for reassessment under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was invalid for not allowing the assessee not less than thirty days to file the return as required by section 22(2), whether such defect could be waived by filing a return under protest and participating in the proceedings, and whether laches or availability of an alternative remedy barred relief under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Section 34 incorporates the requirements of section 22(2) by reference, and the serving of a valid notice is a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment. A notice that gives less than the statutory minimum time is not a mere irregularity but an invalid notice, and proceedings founded upon it are without jurisdiction. The filing of a return under protest, followed by objections taken in the appellate proceedings, does not amount to an intentional relinquishment of a known right. The defect was patent on the face of the proceedings, so the existence of appellate remedies did not bar the writ, and delay did not disentitle the petitioner where the jurisdictional defect itself was apparent.

Conclusion: The notice under section 34 was invalid, the reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction, and there was no waiver or disqualifying laches.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to prohibition against further reassessment proceedings initiated on the defective notice.

Ratio Decidendi: Where reassessment is conditioned on a valid statutory notice, non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirement goes to jurisdiction and cannot be cured by waiver, acquiescence, or subsequent participation under protest.

---