https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276610 Penalty proceedings were upheld where the demand notice quantified the penalty, stated the default, and the record showed a prior order to levy penalty; service by affixture at the business premises was accepted as sufficient when personal service on the managing director failed. An order under section 33A was treated as administrative revisional action, not a judicial or quasi-judicial determination, so certiorari under article 226 was unavailable. The Income Tax Officer was also entitled to treat the assessee as a defaulter despite a pending appeal, because the statute gave only discretionary power to stay collection and no absolute right to suspension of recovery. en-us Wed, 24 Feb 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Nov 2018 16:40:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276610 Penalty proceedings were upheld where the demand notice quantified the penalty, stated the default, and the record showed a prior order to levy penalty; service by affixture at the business premises was accepted as sufficient when personal service on the managing director failed. An order under section 33A was treated as administrative revisional action, not a judicial or quasi-judicial determination, so certiorari under article 226 was unavailable. The Income Tax Officer was also entitled to treat the assessee as a defaulter despite a pending appeal, because the statute gave only discretionary power to stay collection and no absolute right to suspension of recovery. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Feb 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276610