Valid service of reassessment notice is jurisdictional; invalid affixture and unproved speed post service vitiated reassessment.

Service of notice under section 148 was treated as a jurisdictional prerequisite for reassessment under section 147. Where the assessee denied receipt, the Department had to prove valid service with cogent material. Affixture was held insufficient because the requirements for substituted service under Order V Rules 17, 19 and 20 CPC were not met: there was no proper basis for affixture, the report lacked necessary particulars, and verification on oath was not shown. Service by speed post was also unproved because supporting postal evidence was absent. Presumptions under section 27 of the General Clauses Act and section 114 of the Evidence Act did not apply on the facts, and the reassessment was invalid for want of proper service.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment was valid when the assessee disputed service of notice under section 148 and the Department relied on affixture and speed post to prove service.

Analysis: Service of notice under section 148 was treated as a condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction to complete reassessment under section 147. Where the assessee specifically denied receipt of notice, the burden lay on the Department to prove valid service with cogent material. The record showed that the purported service by affixture did not satisfy the requirements of Order V Rules 17, 19 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, because there was no adequate basis for substituted service, the report did not disclose the necessary particulars, and no proper verification on oath was shown. The claimed service by speed post was also not established by supporting postal evidence. Presumptions under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were held inapplicable on the facts because the foundational evidence of dispatch and delivery was not proved. As the notice was found to be invalid and wrongly addressed, the subsequent reassessment proceedings were vitiated.

Conclusion: The reassessment was held invalid for want of valid service of notice under section 148, and the assessee succeeded on the jurisdictional issue.

---