Writ jurisdiction and opportunity of hearing under tax law: statutory appeal remedy and notice by affixation were treated as sufficient.

Where a taxing statute provides an adequate and efficacious appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be used to bypass the statutory scheme, particularly on disputed facts. In relation to action under section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the operative requirement is a reasonable opportunity of hearing; the statute does not require any special mode of service unless expressly provided. On the facts noted, notice at the assessee's admitted address, affixation after failed personal service, and postal dispatch were treated as sufficient, and the challenge to the revision order failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant should have been relegated to the statutory appellate remedy instead of invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226; and (ii) whether the assessee was given the opportunity of being heard required for action under section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant should have been relegated to the statutory appellate remedy instead of invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Analysis: Where the statute provides an adequate and efficacious remedy, especially on questions involving disputed facts, the High Court should ordinarily decline to entertain a writ petition. Extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not meant to bypass the revenue machinery when the Act itself provides a complete scheme of assessment and appellate relief, unless there is infringement of fundamental rights or a clear want of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not fit to be entertained in view of the available statutory appeal remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was given the opportunity of being heard required for action under section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The notice was attempted at the assessee's admitted address, later affixed there after failed personal service attempts, and copies were also sent by post. On the evidence, the High Court's finding that the assessee had notice and an opportunity of hearing was upheld. Section 33B required an opportunity of hearing, not the stricter mode of service applicable to section 34.

Conclusion: The requirement of giving an opportunity of being heard was satisfied, and the challenge to the section 33B order failed.

Final Conclusion: The assessment-revision order was sustained, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute provides an adequate appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to contest fact-sensitive issues; and for action under section 33B, the statutory requirement is only that a reasonable opportunity of hearing be given, not any particular form of service unless the statute so provides.

---