JUDGMENT

JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.:—We have heard the learned Additional Solicitor-General who assails the judgment of the High Court and prays that special leave be granted. We, however, do not consider the point arising in the judgment requires examination but as it affects a large number of cases, we have been invited to give our reasons for dismissing the petition. Accordingly, we do so.

2. The main question on which the High Court decided and which is the only question urged before us for admitting the petition is that the word issued occurring in Sec. 18 (2A) of the Wealth-tax Act means served . This decision is well supported not only by the decisions of the High Court but also of this Court. In Banarsi Debi v. Income Tax Officer, Calcutta, 53 ITR 100 this Court observed that the expressions issued and served are used as inter-changeable terms and in the legislative practice of our country they are some times used to convey the same idea. Accordingly, it was held that the word issued was not used in the narrow sense of sent but that the said expression had received before the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1959, 1151 a clear judicial interpretation. Subba Rao, J. as he then was dealing with the purpose which the word issue was intended to serve, after referring to Sriniwas v. Income-tax Officer, 30 ITR 381 cited in the judgment under attack and a Bombay decision, observed at page 108, "the intention would be effectuated if the wider meaning is given to the expression issued . The dictionary meaning of the expression issued takes in the entire process of sending notices as well as service thereof. The said word used in Section 34 (1) of the Act itself was interpreted by courts to mean served .

3. In our view any other conclusion would lead to incongruous and unjust result. The legal position being clear, this petition has to be dismissed and we accordingly do so.

Petition dismissed.

For Citation : AIR 1976 SC 1150