PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.Falshaw and Tek Chand JJ.
Jhabar Mal Chokhani
Versus
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi And Rajasthan, New Delhi
Income tax Reference No. 29 of 1962,
Decided On : MARCH 20, 1963
INCOME TAX - SERVICE OF NOTICE OF DEMAND - VALIDITY - ORDER V, RULE 20 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - REQUIREMENTS - AFFIXATION OF SUMMONS AT COURT-HOUSE AND AT RESIDENCE OF PERSON TO BE SERVED - MANDATORY - FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY ONE REQUIREMENT NULLIFIES THE WHOLE PROCEEDING.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee received a notice of demand by affixture on 29th March, 1957, as he was out of station. The assessee filed an application before the Income-tax Officer on 27th October, 1958, praying that the assessment which had already been completed under Section 23, Sub-section (4) of the Income-tax Act might be reopened. His application was rejected as time barred.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal held that the notice of demand was duly and validly served under Order V, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 29th of March, 1957.
Issues: Whether the provisions of order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil procedure have been complied with in this case.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the requirements of Order V, Rule 20 are mandatory and failure to comply with any one requirement thereof nullifies the whole proceeding. In this case, the summons was not affixed in the court-house, which is a mandatory requirement of Rule 20. Therefore, the substituted service was bad in law.
Final Decision: The question "Was the service or the notice of demand validly made on 29th March, 1957" must be answered in the negative.
Tek Chand, J.
1. This is an income-tax reference in which the following question of law has been referred to us:-
-
"Was the service of-the notice of demand, validiy made on 29th March, 1957?".
The facts as contained in the statement drawn up by the Tribunal are as under: The case refers to the assessment year 1947-48 (previous year ending on 31st of March, 1947). The assessee is an individual who resides at No. 8, Toddarmal Road, New Delhi. The assessment had been completed and the assessee requested the Income-tax Officer to reopen the case tinder Section 27 of the Income-tax Act, but this request was not granted. The following chronological resume was given by the Tribunal:-
-
Local Government Department,
Notified Areas,
The 3rd March, 1945.
No. 71-C/45/11687 -- In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of
Sub-section (1) of Section 242 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, the Governor
of the Punjab is pleased to impose in the Notified Area of Tankanwali, IN the
Ferozepur District with effect from the 1st April, 1945, the Tax described
below:
DESCRIPTION OF TAX
A tax at the rate shown in column 3 of the schedule here below on the persons
carrying on the trade, or following the profession or calling shown in column
2 thereof, provided that:
(a) the tax shall not be payable by persons in Govt. service or in that of a
local authority and
(b) the tax shall be recoverable in the month of April every year.
S. No. Trade, profession or calling Amount of tax payable per anum
Rs. A.P .
1.Grain, cloth, oil, ghee, sugar gur, shaker, atta, or meat sellers,
owner of a flour milt, matches depot, or tea depot, hotel keeper,
confectioner. Bhusa seller, cigarettes and pan seller, firewood, coal,
charcoal or milk seller, soap maker, cycle dealer, butcher, sheep or
goat seller, iron merchant, tobacco seller, dea term matches, kerosene
oil or petrol, owner of bricJc kiln, bone seller, leather merchant, or
owner of a dairy. Rs. 25-0.0.
2.Persons practicing any profession or carrying any trade or calling
not specified in this schedule; Rs. 15-9-0.
On 20th of August, 1958, the counsel for the assessee addressed a letter to the Income-tax Officer, District A-1, New Delhi (Exhibit A) that no notice of demand has been received by the assessee and regular notice of demand should be issued to him now and a copy of the assessment order should also be supplied. The assessee received reply dated 21st of August, 1958, from the Income-tax Officer (Exhibit A(i)) Informing him that the demand notice and a copy of the assessment order were served by affixture on 29th of March, 1957, as the assessee was out of station as per remarks of the postal authorities on the registered letter.
2. The assessee filed an application before the income-tax Officer on 27th of October, 1958, praying that the assessment which had already been completed under Section 23, Sub-section (4) of the Income-tax Act might be reopened. His application was rejected as time barred, it was also stated that proceedings under Section 34 were intimated with the approval of the Commissioner of income-tax ana notice under Section 34 was served by affixture on 28th of March 1956. Later on, notices under Section 22(4) were served by affixture but nobody attended. The application under Section 27 was consequently rejected.
3. An appeal was filed against this order of the Income-tax Officer but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner declined to interfere in appeal holding that the application under Section 27 was barred (Vide Exhibit C).
4. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal where it was contended that the service of the demand notice on 29th of March, 1957, was defective and further that the notice of demand itself was invalid because it was not accompanied with the necessary forms. The Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal, expressed the view that the assessee was an habitual defaul
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.