Final pre-Constitution assessment orders cannot be indirectly nullified, and tax recovery needs statutory notice to each liable person.

A final pre-Constitution assessment order could not be reopened, quashed, or indirectly nullified in writ jurisdiction, and the concluded order was left undisturbed. Recovery proceedings against former partners were not maintainable without serving each of them with the statutory notice of demand required under the Income-tax Act, even if liability was said to extend to them. The assessment had been made on the firm, but enforcement against persons not named as assessees could not lawfully begin without compliance with the statutory notice requirement. Relief was therefore limited to restraining recovery under the impugned demand notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a pre-Constitution assessment order that had attained finality could be quashed or indirectly nullified in writ jurisdiction. (ii) Whether recovery proceedings could be taken against former partners without serving them with the statutory notice required under the Income-tax Act.

Issue (i): Whether a pre-Constitution assessment order that had attained finality could be quashed or indirectly nullified in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The assessment order was passed before the Constitution came into force and had attained finality. The constitutional writ jurisdiction could not be used to reopen or invalidate that concluded judicial order, nor could the same result be achieved indirectly by treating it as a nullity and restraining action taken in consequence of it.

Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment order failed.

Issue (ii): Whether recovery proceedings could be taken against former partners without serving them with the statutory notice required under the Income-tax Act.

Analysis: The tax had been assessed on the firm, while the recovery notice was issued to the former partners. Even assuming liability could pass to the partners, they were persons liable to pay tax and not the assessees named in the assessment order. Before recovery could lawfully begin against them, a notice of demand under the Act had to be served on each of them. In the absence of such notice, the recovery process was not maintainable.

Conclusion: Recovery proceedings against the petitioners were not valid without prior statutory notice.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the extent that recovery pursuant to the impugned demand notice was restrained, while the pre-Constitution assessment order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A completed and final pre-Constitution judicial order cannot be indirectly nullified through writ relief, and recovery under the Income-tax Act cannot be initiated against a person without compliance with the statutory notice requirement applicable to that person.

---