https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6848 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. en-us Fri, 24 Dec 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6848 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 24 Dec 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6848