Reassessment notice defect invalidates jurisdiction where statute requires minimum compliance time; mere participation does not waive the objection.

A reassessment notice under section 35 of the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income-tax Act was held invalid because it allowed only three days for compliance, while section 16(2) required a minimum of thirty days. The shorter period breached a statutory condition precedent, so the reassessment was without jurisdiction and void. Mere compliance with the notice and participation in the proceedings did not amount to waiver, because the record did not show a conscious and intentional relinquishment of the objection. The defective notice therefore could not be cured by conduct, and the reassessment was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a reassessment notice under section 35 of the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, was valid when it granted only three days for compliance although section 16(2) required a minimum period of thirty days; (ii) whether the defect in such notice had been waived by the assessee's compliance.

Issue (i): Whether a reassessment notice under section 35 of the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, was valid when it granted only three days for compliance although section 16(2) required a minimum period of thirty days.

Analysis: The notice under section 35 incorporated requirements referable to section 16(2), which expressly stipulates that the assessee must be given a period of not less than thirty days. The minimum period applies to the notice whenever the assessee is called upon to furnish a return or particulars under the reassessment provision. A notice allowing a shorter period does not satisfy the statutory condition precedent. The reassessment was therefore made without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The notice was invalid and the reassessment was illegal and void.

Issue (ii): Whether the defect in such notice had been waived by the assessee's compliance.

Analysis: Mere compliance with the notice and appearance in the proceedings did not, on the facts, establish a conscious relinquishment of the legal objection. The materials did not show the elements necessary to constitute waiver.

Conclusion: No waiver was proved.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment could not be sustained because it rested on a defective notice that did not confer jurisdiction, and the challenge therefore failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a reassessment provision requires a notice allowing a minimum statutory period for compliance, service of a notice giving a shorter period is a condition-precedent defect that renders the reassessment void, and such defect is not waived by mere compliance absent clear proof of intentional relinquishment.

---