Court upholds validity of notice under Section 148 for deceased, deems petition premature for not following procedure.

The court held that the notice issued under Section 148 in the name of the deceased, represented by legal heirs, including the petitioner, was valid. The court found the writ petition challenging the notice premature as the prescribed procedure of filing a return, requesting reasons for reopening, and raising objections was not followed. Emphasizing the importance of adherence to procedural requirements, the court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner liberty to comply within a specified timeframe.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act in the name of a deceased person.
2. Maintainability of the writ petition challenging the notice without following the prescribed procedure.
3. Interpretation of legal heirship in the context of the notice issued under Section 148.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contended that the notice issued under Section 148 in the name of the deceased father, represented by legal heirs, specifically naming a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) as a legal heir, was void. However, the court differentiated this case from a previous judgment where the notice was solely in the name of the deceased person. The court held that in this instance, the notice was issued in the name of the deceased, represented by legal heirs, including the petitioner, making it valid.

2. The respondent argued that the writ petition challenging the notice was not maintainable as per the procedure outlined in the GKN Drive Shafts case. The court concurred, emphasizing that the petitioner should have first filed a return, requested reasons for reopening, and raised objections before approaching the court. Since these steps were not followed, the court deemed the writ petition premature and directed the petitioner to adhere to the prescribed procedure post-notice issuance.

3. The court highlighted the importance of following the procedure set out in the GKN Drive Shafts case, which requires the petitioner to file a return, seek reasons for reopening, and allow for objections before assessment. Emphasizing the need for a speaking order by the respondent after objections are filed, the court ruled that challenging the notice under Section 148 at the initial stage, without completing the prescribed steps, was not permissible. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to comply with the procedural requirements within a specified timeframe.

---