1976 (9) TMI 19 - HC - Income Tax

Court Invalidates Service of Notice via Affixture Under Rule 17, Emphasizes Specific Conditions

The High Court of Allahabad ruled that the service of notice of demand on the assessee via affixture did not comply with the standards set by Order V, ... Hundi Loans, Income Escaping Assessment, Jurisdiction Of Court Issues involved: Valid service of notice of demand u/s 282 of the Act by affixture, compliance with Order V, rule 17 and Order V, rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Judgment Summary:The High Court of Allahabad, in the case at hand, addressed the controversy surrounding the validity of the service of the notice of demand on the assessee. The court examined the process followed by the Income-tax Officer, where the notice was served by affixture. The petitioner contended that there was no valid service of the notice of demand. The court scrutinized the actions taken by the process server and the Income-tax Officer in this regard.Upon reviewing the provisions of Section 282 of the Act, the court delved into the requirements for service as per the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner's counsel argued that there was non-compliance with Order V, rule 17, while the revenue's counsel asserted that there was sufficient compliance with Order V, rule 20. The court analyzed the contentions and the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.The court observed that, based on the material presented, service by affixture did not meet the standards set by Order V, rule 17. The court then proceeded to evaluate whether the service could be considered adequate under Order V, rule 20. It was emphasized that for action under rule 20, specific conditions must exist, such as the defendant avoiding service or the summons being unable to be served in the ordinary manner. The court highlighted the necessity for objective satisfaction by the court based on relevant material.Ultimately, the court concluded that the order for service by affixture was not supported by sufficient material on record. As a result, the notices of demand and the order of attachment of properties were quashed, directing the respondents not to enforce the tax based on these notices and to withdraw the attachment order. The petition was allowed with costs.