Court emphasizes exhausting statutory remedies before seeking writ jurisdiction, denies Petitioner's requests on service, ownership, auction legality.

The Court denied the Petitioner's requests regarding the validity of service of notice of assessment, ownership of paintings put to auction, and legality of auction proceedings. It emphasized the need for the Petitioner to exhaust statutory appellate remedies before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction. The Court directed the Petitioner to file appeals against the assessment orders by a specified date, ensuring a hearing on merits without reference to the limitation period. The interim arrangement sought by the Petitioner was also rejected, and the case was disposed of, leaving all contentions open for appellate proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of service of notice of assessment.
2. Ownership of paintings and artworks put to auction.
3. Legality of the auction proceedings.
4. Availability of alternative remedies.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Service of Notice of Assessment:
The Petitioner contended that the assessment notices were not properly served, rendering the assessment orders invalid. The company claimed that one director was in judicial custody and the other had resigned before the service of notice. The Petitioner argued that the department should have followed the alternative procedure under Order V of the CPC. The Respondents countered that notices were served by affixation at the company’s registered address and that the resignation of the director was not substantiated with evidence. The Court held that the issue of validity of service of notice requires detailed examination of facts, which should be addressed through statutory appeals rather than writ jurisdiction.

2. Ownership of Paintings and Artworks Put to Auction:
The Petitioner claimed ownership of only 19 out of 68 paintings and artworks auctioned by the Tax Recovery Officer. The Respondents provided evidence, including statements and bills, indicating that the paintings were stored by the Petitioner at a warehouse. The Court noted that the Petitioner failed to produce prima facie evidence to support its claim of limited ownership and that no other claimant had come forward. The Court found the department’s evidence sufficient to establish prima facie ownership by the Petitioner.

3. Legality of the Auction Proceedings:
The Petitioner challenged the auction on the grounds that the assessment orders were invalid and that the paintings did not belong to the company. The Court observed that the auction received wide publicity and no other claims of ownership were made. The Court also noted that the Petitioner did not challenge the valuation of the paintings. The Court concluded that the auction proceedings were conducted lawfully and that any potential reversal of the assessment orders through appeals would result in the return of sale proceeds with interest to the Petitioner.

4. Availability of Alternative Remedies:
The Court emphasized the principle of exhausting alternative remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction. It referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, which underscores the necessity of utilizing statutory remedies provided under the Act. The Court found that the Petitioner had not availed of the appellate remedies available under the Income Tax Act and directed the Petitioner to file appeals against the assessment orders by a specified date, ensuring that the appeals would be heard on merits without reference to the limitation period.

Conclusion:
The Court refused both prayers of the Petitioner, emphasizing the need for the Petitioner to utilize the statutory appellate remedies. The Court provided that if the Petitioner files appeals by the specified date, the Appellate Commissioner shall hear them on merits. The interim arrangement requested by the Petitioner was denied. The Petition was disposed of with all contentions of both sides kept open for the appellate proceedings.

---