https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6175 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. en-us Thu, 31 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6175 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 31 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6175