Notice to Lawful Guardian invalidates assessment when served on non-appointed guardian; writ remedy remains despite revision.

Service of a notice under section 16(2) must be effected on the lawfully appointed guardian where liability for a minor's agricultural income is imposed on a guardian; failure to serve the lawful guardian means the assessing officer lacks jurisdiction to make a best judgment assessment under section 17(4), rendering such assessment invalid. Separately, the availability of a statutory revision remedy does not bar writ relief where the assessing authority has acted without jurisdiction; the absence of jurisdiction is a ground permitting exercise of writ jurisdiction notwithstanding the alternative remedy, resulting in relief for the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether notice under section 16(2) issued to a person who was not the lawfully appointed guardian of a minor is a valid notice for the purposes of making an assessment under section 17(4) of the Madras Agricultural Income Tax Act, and (ii) whether the existence of an alternative remedy of revision under section 34 precludes exercise of writ jurisdiction where the assessing officer acted without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether a notice served on a person who is not the court-appointed guardian satisfies the statutory requirement for assessing agricultural income of a minor under sections 8, 16(2) and 17(4) of the Madras Agricultural Income Tax Act.

Analysis: Section 16(2) prescribes issuance of notice for return where no return is filed; section 17(4) empowers the officer to make best judgment assessment if a person fails to make a return pursuant to a valid notice; section 8 assigns liability in respect of agricultural income receivable by a person under disability to the guardian appointed by law or by court. Where the law requires notice to the lawful guardian, compliance with that procedure is a precondition to the officer acquiring jurisdiction to make a best judgment assessment under section 17(4). Service of notice on a person who is not the appointed guardian does not satisfy the statutory requirement and renders any consequential assessment invalid for want of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The notice issued to a person who was not the lawfully appointed guardian was invalid and the assessments made under section 17(4) are without jurisdiction and therefore cannot be sustained (result in favour of the assessee).

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of revision under section 34 bars the grant of writs where the assessing authority acted without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative statutory remedy may be relevant to discretionary exercise of writ jurisdiction; however, where a lack of jurisdiction of the assessing authority is established, issuance of writs is not precluded by the existence of a revision remedy.

Conclusion: The existence of a revision remedy under section 34 does not preclude issuance of writs where the assessing authority has acted without jurisdiction (result in favour of the assessee).

---