Strict compliance with substituted service rules is required; invalid affixture notice cannot sustain a best judgment assessment.

Section 64 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act was treated as the exclusive provision governing service of notice, and where service is attempted by affixture the safeguards in Order V Rules 17, 18 and 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be strictly followed. Because the record did not show proper proof of affixture service, the notice could not be treated as valid service. The best judgment assessment made without lawful notice and opportunity to respond was therefore unsustainable and offended natural justice, entitling the assessees to relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of the pre-assessment notice by affixture complied with section 64 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 and whether, in the absence of such valid service, the best judgment assessment could stand.

Analysis: Section 64 was held to be the only provision in the Act governing service of notices and it required service in the manner applicable to a summons under the Code of Civil Procedure. Where service is sought to be effected by affixture, the safeguards of Order V, Rules 17, 18 and 19 of the Code must be followed, including proper proof of service. In the present case, there was no material showing that the affixture service was proved in the manner required by law. The alleged service therefore could not be treated as valid service, and the assessment made without giving the assessees a lawful opportunity to meet the case against them offended natural justice.

Conclusion: The notice by affixture was invalid, the assessment was unsustainable, and the petitioners were entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a specific mode of service by reference to the Code of Civil Procedure, that prescribed procedure must be strictly followed for substituted service to be valid, failing which no constructive notice can be imputed.

---