Valid service by affixture and alternative statutory remedy principles governed challenge to income-tax revision proceedings.

Where section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922 required only that the assessee be given an opportunity of being heard, a notice actually issued was validly served when affixture complied with the applicable procedural rule under Order V, Rule 17, as incorporated by section 63(1); repeated attempts at the known addresses and absence of the assessee justified substituted service. The Court also noted that the existence of an appellate remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction, but it is a strong discretionary reason to decline relief under article 226 when no special circumstances justify bypassing the statutory forum.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice issued in proceedings under section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was validly served by affixture so as to satisfy the requirement of giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard; (ii) whether relief under article 226 of the Constitution of India should be refused on the ground that an adequate alternative statutory remedy was available.

Issue (i): Whether the notice issued in proceedings under section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was validly served by affixture so as to satisfy the requirement of giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Analysis: The statutory requirement under section 33B was not of a notice as a jurisdictional foundation in the same sense as section 34, but of affording an opportunity of being heard. Even so, where a written notice was in fact issued, its service had to be judged by the applicable procedural rule. The Court held that the reference in section 63(1) of the Act to service as a summons under the Code of Civil Procedure attracted Order V, Rule 17 as amended locally. On the facts, repeated attempts were made at the declared and known addresses, the respondent was found absent from both, and the officers were informed that she was elsewhere and not likely to be found within a reasonable time. Service by affixture was therefore treated as valid.

Conclusion: The notice was validly served and the requirement of opportunity of hearing under section 33B was satisfied.

Issue (ii): Whether relief under article 226 of the Constitution of India should be refused on the ground that an adequate alternative statutory remedy was available.

Analysis: The statute provided an appellate remedy against an order under section 33B. The Court held that although the existence of an alternative remedy does not oust writ jurisdiction, it is a strong discretionary ground for refusing interference where the facts do not justify recourse to extraordinary jurisdiction. No sufficient reason was shown for bypassing the statutory remedy, and the dispute turned on matters that could appropriately have been pursued in the statutory forum.

Conclusion: Relief in writ jurisdiction was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court upheld the validity of the impugned proceedings, set aside the order quashing them, and restored the revenue authority's action.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings where the statute requires only that the assessee be given an opportunity of being heard, a notice actually issued is validly served if service is effected in accordance with the applicable procedural rule, and writ relief may be declined where an adequate statutory remedy exists and no special circumstances justify bypassing it.

---