Strict compliance for service by affixation is required; defective notice service invalidated the section 33B action.

Service of notice by affixation under Order V Rule 17 requires strict compliance with the prescribed conditions, including due diligence, proper identification of the premises and a complete service report. The serving officer's report lacked the names and addresses of the persons who identified the business premises and did not show personal knowledge of the place, so valid service was not established and the risk of service at the wrong place could not be excluded. The resulting order under section 33B could not be sustained. The text also notes that an adequate statutory appeal remedy existed and that writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked, although the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petitions.

---

---

Issues: Whether notice before action under section 33B was properly served on the assessee by affixation in accordance with law.

Analysis: Service under section 63(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 had to be effected in the manner prescribed for summons under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Under Order V Rule 17, affixation is permissible only where the serving officer, after due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant and the report must disclose the circumstances, including the identification of the house and the name and address of the person by whom it was identified. The serving officer's report did not contain the names and addresses of the persons who identified the place of business, nor did it show personal knowledge of the premises. In those circumstances, the possibility of service at a wrong place could not be ruled out, and the alleged service by affixation was not in conformity with law. The Court also noted that the assessee had an adequate statutory remedy by appeal and that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not ordinarily have been invoked, though the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petitions.

Conclusion: The notice was not properly served, so the order under section 33B could not be sustained; the decision was in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service of notice is sought by affixation under Order V Rule 17, strict compliance with the prescribed conditions and a complete service report are necessary; failure to do so renders the service invalid and vitiates the subsequent action.

---