Uncommunicated assessment and prior reconsideration direction defeated distraint and consequential attachment orders.

A distraint order based on an assessment order that had not been communicated could not stand, particularly where an earlier proceeding had already set aside the attachment order and directed reconsideration. The subsequent direction to redo the matter meant the distraint order had no independent survival, and the consequential attachment also had to be set aside. The assessment process itself was left open to be completed in accordance with law and the earlier direction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the distraint order and consequential attachment order were liable to be quashed when the assessment order had not been communicated and a subsequent order had already directed reconsideration of the matter.

Analysis: The distraint order was founded on an assessment order that had not been communicated to the petitioner. The attachment order had also already been set aside in earlier proceedings with a direction to redo the matter. In view of this subsequent development, the distraint order could not survive independently and the consequential attachment order also required to be set aside.

Conclusion: The distraint order was quashed and the attachment order was also quashed. The Assessing Officer was left open to complete the assessment in accordance with law and the earlier direction.

---