Defective service and natural justice breach justified writ intervention, remand of assessment, and setting aside of garnishee notice.

Where an assessee shows defective service of the pre-assessment notice and a serious breach of prescribed service procedure, the writ court may intervene even if the statutory appeal was filed beyond the condonable period. The court held that service on an unauthorised person could not amount to valid notice and that failure to ensure proper notice and hearing amounted to violation of natural justice. Because the assessment was procedurally infirm, it was remitted for fresh consideration so the assessee could place material in support of the claimed exemption, and the consequential garnishee notice was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ court could interfere when the statutory appeal was filed beyond the condonable period, in the presence of a plea of violation of natural justice; (ii) Whether the assessment was vitiated for non-service of pre-assessment notice and non-compliance with the prescribed mode of service; (iii) Whether the matter and the consequential garnishee notice were liable to be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.

Issue (i): Whether the writ court could interfere when the statutory appeal was filed beyond the condonable period, in the presence of a plea of violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The statutory rule on limitation was considered against the settled principle that writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily to be used to bypass an expired statutory remedy. At the same time, where the assessment is alleged to be without proper notice or in breach of procedure, the writ court may intervene if the petitioner substantiates the inability to avail the appeal in time and shows a serious procedural infraction. The earlier ruling relied upon was distinguished on the basis that no finding of natural justice violation had been recorded there.

Conclusion: The writ court could interfere on the facts of this case, and the bar of delayed appeal did not prevent exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment was vitiated for non-service of pre-assessment notice and non-compliance with the prescribed mode of service.

Analysis: The assessment record showed that the pre-assessment notice was returned unserved and that the assessee's case on service was not satisfactorily answered by the appellate authorities. The prescribed mode of service under the relevant rules had to be followed, and service on an unauthorised person could not be treated as valid service. The failure to ensure proper notice and hearing amounted to a breach of procedure and natural justice.

Conclusion: The assessment was held to be vitiated by defective service and violation of natural justice.

Issue (iii): Whether the matter and the consequential garnishee notice were liable to be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.

Analysis: Since the assessment suffered from procedural infirmity, the proper course was to give the assessee an opportunity to place material in support of the claimed exemption and to have the matter reconsidered by the assessing authority. The consequential recovery step could not survive independently once the assessment was remitted.

Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed, the matter was remitted for fresh assessment, and the garnishee notice was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained partial substantive relief in the form of a remand and setting aside of the recovery notice, while the assessment itself was not finally quashed on merits and was directed to be reconsidered afresh.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may intervene notwithstanding expiry of the statutory appeal period where the assessee establishes defective service and breach of prescribed procedure causing violation of natural justice; in such a case, the assessment may be remitted for fresh consideration instead of treating the limitation bar as conclusive.

---