Income-tax recovery notices are not quashed for disputed contents alone where jurisdiction exists and opportunity was given.

A writ court will not quash an income-tax garnishee or recovery notice merely because the demand or particulars are disputed, where the competent authority had jurisdiction to issue it. The notice was issued in aid of a finalised assessment, so objections went to the merits of the demand rather than to jurisdiction. The article also notes that natural justice was satisfied because the assessee had notice of the demand proceedings and further opportunity in reassessment proceedings, including recording of evidence and cross-examination. On those facts, the recovery action was upheld and writ relief was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the garnishee notice issued under the income-tax law was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed in writ proceedings. (ii) Whether the earlier assessment and consequential recovery action were vitiated for breach of natural justice for want of opportunity to the assessee.

Issue (i): Whether the garnishee notice issued under the income-tax law was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed in writ proceedings.

Analysis: The impugned notice was issued by the competent income-tax authority in aid of an assessment which had already become final. The challenge was directed not to the existence of jurisdiction but to the amount demanded and the particulars contained in the notice. Such objections go to the merits or contents of the notice and not to the authority's power to issue it. In writ proceedings, interference is warranted only where the authority acts without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The notice was not shown to be without jurisdiction, and the challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier assessment and consequential recovery action were vitiated for breach of natural justice for want of opportunity to the assessee.

Analysis: The assessee had notice of the demand proceedings, did not appeal against them, and later had a further opportunity in the reassessment proceedings under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. In that reopening enquiry, evidence was recorded and the assessee was cross-examined, but the finding remained that he was a member of the association of persons. The rule of natural justice is judged on the actual facts of the case, and where adequate and effective opportunity has been afforded, the doctrine is satisfied.

Conclusion: There was no breach of natural justice, and this ground also failed.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the recovery action and declined writ relief, holding that the notice was within jurisdiction and that the assessee had been afforded sufficient opportunity.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not quash an income-tax recovery notice merely because its contents are disputed if the issuing authority had jurisdiction, and the requirement of natural justice is satisfied where the assessee had effective opportunities to contest the liability in the statutory proceedings.

---