Holding

When an order is vacated for violation of natural justice, the proceedings are not terminated; the appellate authority may set aside the order and direct a de novo reassessment without reserving a limitation plea, provided the assessee had a reasonable opportunity to be heard and no prejudice is demonstrated.

Summary

The appellant, Commissioner of Sales Tax, sought reassessment of sales tax for the years 1981‑82, 1982‑83 and 1983‑84 against M/s Subhash & Co., whose registration was cancelled in 1987. Notices for reassessment were issued to the address on the registration certificate and, when the assessee was not found, were served by affixture. The assessee challenged the reassessment on the ground that the notice was not served in accordance with Rule 63, violating natural‑justice principles. The High Court Single Judge held the service defective and ordered a de novo reassessment; the Division Bench set aside that direction for lack of a reservation to raise the limitation plea. The Supreme Court held that when an order is struck down for breach of natural justice, the proceedings remain open and the appellate authority may set aside the order and direct the assessing officer to decide the case de novo, even without reserving a right to raise limitation, provided the assessee had a reasonable opportunity to be heard and no prejudice is shown. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the direction for de novo reassessment was upheld.

Issues considered

Whether improper service of notice under Rule 63, violating natural‑justice principles, warrants setting aside the reassessment order and directing a de novo assessment.
Whether a de novo assessment can be ordered without reserving the right to raise the limitation defence.
Whether non‑issuance, mistake or defective service of notice affects the jurisdiction of the assessing officer.
Whether Section 19(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Act requires a notice or merely a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Legislation cited

Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958s. 19(1), s. 32

Subjects

Sales TaxReassessmentService of NoticeNatural JusticeDe Novo AssessmentLimitationRule 63Section 19(1)JurisdictionProcedural Irregularity

Judgment

A COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX AND ORS.
v.
MIS SUBHASH & CO.

FEBRUARY 17, 2003

B [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJJT PASAYAT, JJ.)

Sales Tax:

MP. Sales Tax Act, 1958-Section 19(/)-MP. General Sales Tax Rules,
C 1959-Rule 63-Re-assessment-Procedure for service ofnotice-Reassessment
proceedings challenged as violative of principles of natural justice due to
improper service of notice-De nova reassessment directed by Single Judge
of High Court-Division Bench held de nova assessment without reserving
any right for the assessee to raise plea of limitation to be improper-On
D appeal-Held, whenever an order is struck down as violative ofprinciples of
natural justice, there is no final decision of the case and the proceedings are
left open-Hence, de nova assessment is justified-Non-issue of notice or
mistake in the issue of notice or defective service of notice does not affect the
jurisdiction of the assessing officer-Proceedings would be vitiated ifprejudice
is caused by non-issue or invalid service, but not by its irregular service-
E Validity of service of notice is a question offact which depends on the facts
and circumstances of the case-However, if the service of notice is treated as
non-est, de nova assessment is not permissible without considering the question
of limitation.

Words and Phrases:
F
'Notice '-Meaning of in the context of Rule 63 of General Sales Tax
Rules, 1959.

Respondent-assessee was registered as a dealer under M.P. General
G Sales Tax Act, 1958. The assessments were originally completed for the
assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. Respondent applied for
cancellation of the registration on 14.12.1987 and the same was cancelled
w.e.f. 23.10.1987. Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for re-assessment
u/s 19(1) of M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 for the above mentioned
assessment years on the ground that there was short levy of tax and
H 44
\
)l

COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX v. MIS. SUBHASH & CO. 45
escapement of assessment. Notices were issued for re-assessment in respect A
of the three assessment years on the address as indicated in the certificate
of registration. Since it was learnt that the respondent was not residing
at the address, service by affixture was resorted to. Thereafter
reassessment was done. Respondent challenged the re-assessment order
before revisional authority on the ground that the orders of re-assessment B
as well as original assessment were not served on him, rendering the re-
assessment proceedings illegal. The revisio11 petition was dismissed
observing that the respondent's registration certificate remained in force
till he applied for cancellation i.e. 14.12.1987, and as the notices were issued
for service at the address given in the registration certificate, there was
nothing illegal. C
Respondent filed writ petition on the ground that the procedure
prescribed for service of notice as contemplated under Rule 63 of M.P.
General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 had not been followed and hence principles
of natural justice were violated. Single Judge of High Court allowed the
writ petition holding that service was not effected properly inasmuch as D
the Assessing officer had failed to record the reasons for his satisfaction
that the assessee was evading service or that the service was not possible
in any other manner before resorting to service by affixture. Hence it was
directed that the re-assessment were to be done do nova. On appeal
Division Bench held that the direction for de nova assessment without E
reserving any right for the respondent-assessee to raise the plea of
limitation was not proper. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Single Judge was justified in directing de nova assessment F
by an order of remand. The direction was appropriate as the only ground
on which the interference was made related to the violation of principles
of natural justice by alleged improper service of notice. [49-G; HJ

Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. R.P. Dixit Saghidar, (2001) 9 SCC
324, referred to. G
2. Whenever an order is struck down as invalid being violative of
principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of the case and,
therefore, proceedings are left open. All that is done is that the order
assailed by virtue of its inherent defect is vacated but the proceedings are
not terminated. (54-F) H
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A Quduthur Bros. v. Income Tax Officer, Special Circle Bangalore, (1960)
40 ITR 298 SC; Superintendent (Tech. I) Central Excise, /DD Jaba/pur and
Ors. v. Pratap Rai, (1978) 114 ITR 231 SC and Commissioner a/Sales Tax,
U.P. v. R.P. Dixit Saghidar, [2001] 9 SCC 324, referred to.

3. Non-issue of notice or mistake in the issue of notice or defective
B service of notice does not affect the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, if
otherwise reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given. Issue of
notice as prescribed in M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 constitutes a
part of reasonable opportunity of being heard. If prejudice has been caused
by non-issue or invalid service of notice the proceeding would be vitiated.
C But irregular service of notice would not render the proceedings invalid;
more so, if assessee by his conduct has rendered service impracticable or
impossible. In a given case when principles of natural justice are stated
to have been violated it is open to the appellate authority in appropriate
cases to set aside the order and require the Assessing Officer to decide
the case de novo. [55-C, D, E, F)
D
4.1. Whether service of notice is valid or not is essentially a question
of fact. In a given case if the assessee knows about the proceedings and
there is some irregularity in the service of notice, the direction for
continuing proceedings cannot be faulted. It would depend upon the nature
of irregularity and its effect and the question of prejudice has to be
E adjudicated in each case on the basis of surrounding facts. If, however,
the service of notice is treated as non-est in the eye of law, it would not be
permissible to direct de novo assessment without considering the question
of limitation. There also, the question of prejudice has to be considered.
[50-A, B, CJ
F 4.2. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of High Court have
missed to notice that Section 19(1) of M.P. Sales Tax Act, 1958 does not
speak of "notice" before re-assessment. It only prescribes giving of
reasonable opportunity of being heard. Rule 63 deals with methods of
serving notice or summons or order under the Act or any rules made
G thereunder. [50-D; 51-B)

5. The term "notice" has originated from the Latin word "notifia"
which means "a being known" or a knowing is wide enough in legal circle
to include a plaint filed in a suit. "Notice" in its legal sense, may be defined
as information concerning a fact actually communicated to a party by an
H authorized person or actually derived by him from a proper source, or
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAXv. MIS. SUBHASH&CO. [ARJJITPASAYAT, J.] 47
else presumed by law to have been acquired by him, which information is A
regarded as equivalent to knowledge in legal consequences. (52-E)

Anandji Haridas and Co. (P) Ltd v. S.P. Kasture and Ors., AIR{1968)
SC 565, referred to.

Parke B. Burgh v. Lege 5 Mand W 420 8 Ed. Ex.258, referred to. B
The judicial Dictionary, Words and Phrases Judicially interpreted,
Second Edn. By F. Stroud; Webster's Universal College Dictionary, 1997
Edn. (D.543); Oxford Concise Dictionary; Chamber's 20th Century
Dictionary 1993; Chamber's Dictionary vide Allied Chambers (India) Ltd
Reprint 1994, 1995; Law Lexicon Dictionary-A Legal Dictionary of Legal C
Terms and Phrases Judicially Defined Fourth Edition, Vol.II 1989; The Law
Lexicon Dictionary, Second Edition, 1997; Co. Lit 309 Tomlin's Law
Dictionary, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1374 of2003. D
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.4.200 I of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in L.P.A. No. 22 of 2001.

Satish K. Agnihotri and Anil K. Pandey for the Appellants.

Prakash Shrivastava for the Respondent. E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.

The controversy involved in the present case lies with a very narrow F
compass and, therefore, a brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.

Respondent-Subhash Kimtee (hereinafter referred to as assessee) was
the proprietor of a concern known as M/s Subhash and Company. He was
registered as a dealer under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act') w.e.f. 28.5.1973. The registration continued to be G
operative till 22: I 0.1987. The assessment periods to which the dispute relates
are (a) 27.10.1981 to 15.ll.l982. (b) 16.11.1982 to 4.11.1983 and (c)
5.11.1983 to 24.10.1984. The assessments were originally completed for the
assessment years 1981-82. 1982-83 and 1983-84 vide orders dated 12.9.1984,
29.8.1985 and 29.8.1985 respectively. Respondent applied for cancellation of H
f
~\.

48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A the certificate of registration of 14.12.1987 and the same was cancelled w.e.f.
23.10.1987. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for re-assessment
under Section 19( 1) of the Act on the basis of information that the respondent
had purchased iron and steel from Mis. Steel Terro. Indore and had enjoined
certain benefits by issuing declaration forms in Form XII-J. The Assessing
B Officer was of the view that the benefits were not permissible in law and,
therefore, there was short levy of tax and escapement of assessment.
Accordingly, notices were issued for re-assessment in respect of the three
years. The notices were issued on the address as indicated in the certificate
of registration. It was indicated in the notices that the same may be pasted
if the respondent-assessee was not available or he refused to accept the notice.
C Since it was learnt that the respondent-assessee was not residing at the address
given, service by affixture was resorted to vide orders dated 13.12.1990.
13.12.1990 and 31.12.1990, re-assessments were done under Section 19(1) of
the Act. On 23.4.1992, respondent-assessce challenged the orders of re-
assessment by filing revision petition before the revisional authority at Indore
D under Section 39(1 )(b) of the Act on the ground that the notices and the
orders of re-assessment as well as the original assessment orders were not
served on him, rendering the re-assessment proceedings illegal. The revisional
authority vide 3 separate but common order dated 23.4.1993 dismissed the
revision petition recording a finding that service in both the original
assessments as well as re-assessment proceedings had been duly effected by
E affixture and the orders were valid.

It was noted that respondent's certificate of registration remaine.d in
force till he applied for cancellation on 14.12.1987. As the notices were
issued for service at the address given in the registration certificate, there was
nothing illegal.
F
Respondent-assessee filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short ' the Constitution') in the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, at Indore Bench on the ground that the procedure
prescribed for service of notice as contemplated under Rule 63 of the M.P.
General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (in short 'the Rules') has not been followed.
G Accordingly, the principles of natural justice were violated. He took a stand
that after closure of business in October 1980, he was appointed as a clerk,
Grade II in Reserve Bank of India in November, 1980. Revenue contested the
writ petition by filing a counter affidavit specifically stating that service had
been duly effected at the last known address as per the registration certificate.
H There was a duty enjoined on the dealer under Section 32 of the Act to
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAXv. MIS. SUBHASH&CO. [ARIJITPASAYAT,J.l 49

provide necessary information regarding change of address which has not A
been done by the respondent-assessee who continued to enjoy the benefits by
iSsuing declaration forms by virtue of the certificate of registration up to
23.10.1987.

Learned Single Judge with reference to Rule 63 held that the service
was not effected properly inasmuch as the Assessing Officer had failed to B.
record the reasons for his satisfaction that the assessee was evading service
or that the service was not possible in any other manner before resorting to
service by affixture as prescribed under Rule 63.

The writ petition was allowed with a direction that the re-assessments C
were to be done. de nova in accordance with law after hearing the respondent-
assessee within a period of 6 months from the date of order and no further
notice was required as the respondent-dealer was already appearing in the
matter.

Challenge was made by the respondent-assessee before a Division Bench D
on the ground that after having held that there was no valid service of notice.
the direction for de nova assessment was untenable. It was further contended
that challenge on the question of limitation was precluded by the direction.

The Division Bench held that the direction for de nova assessment
without reserving any right for the respondent-assessee to raise the plea of E
limitation was not proper.

In support of the appeal., learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the respondent-assessee cannot take advantage of his own lapses. He was
required under Section 32 of the Act to indicate the change of address.
Admittedly, he did not do so. Merely because at some point of time the F
departmental authorities sent letters by redirecting service by post to deposit
the arrear of tax, it does not do away with the statutory requirement to inform
the authorities about the change of address. Further, learned Single Judge had
only found some procedural irregularity which did not invalidate the service
of notice. Therefore, the direction for de nova assessment was in order.
G
In response, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submitted that
the learned Single Judge clearly held that there was no proper service of
notice and, therefore, there was no service in the eye of law. That being the
position, the re-assessment proceedings which were to be completed within
a particular period could not have been extended by permitting de nova H
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A assessment.
Whether service of notice is valid or not is essentially a question of
fact. In the instant case, learned Single Judge found that certain procedures
were not followed while effecting service by affixture. There was no finding '·
recorded that such service was non-est in the eye of law. In a given case if
B the assessee knows about the proceedings and there is some irregularity in
the service of notice, the direction. for contin·Jing proceedings cannot be
faulted. It would depend upon the nature of irregularity and its effect and the
question of prejudice which are to be adjudicated in each case on the basis
of surrounding facts. If, however, the service of notice is treated as non-est
C in the eye of law, it would not be pennissible to direct de nova assessment
without considering the question of limitation. There also the question of
prejudice has to be considered.

Both learned Single Judge and Division Bench have missed to notice
that Section 19(1) does not speak of "notice" before re-assessment. It only
D prescribes giving of "reasonable opportunity of being heard". It reads as
follows:

"Where an assessment has been made under this Act or any Act
repealed by Section 52 and if for any reason any sale or purchase of
goods chargeable to tax under this Act or any Act repealed by Section
E 52 during any period has been under-assessed or has escaped
assessment or assessed at a lower rate or any deduction has been
wrongly made therefrom, the Commissioner may, at any time within
five calendar years from the date of order of assessment, after giving
the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after making
F such enquiry as he considers necessary, proceed in such manner as
may be prescribed to reassess within a period of two calendar years
from the commencement· of such proceedings, the tax payable by
such dealer and the Commissioner may, where the omission leading
to such reassessment is attributable to the dealer, direct that the dealer
shall pay, by way of penalty in addition to the amount of tax so
G assessed a sum not exceeding that" amount:

Provided that in case of an assessment made under any Act
repealed by Section 52. The period for reassessment on the ground of
under-assessi.1ent, escapement Pt wrong deduction shall be as provided
in such Act notwithstanding the repeal thereof:
H
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX v. M/S. SUBHASH & CO. [ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 51
... Provided further that any reassessment proceedings pending on A
the date of commencement of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax
(Amendment) Act. 1978. be completed in accordance with the
provisions in force before the date of such commencement and within
a period of two calendar years from the date of such commencement."

Rule 63 deals with methods of serving notice or summons or order B
under the Act or any rules made thereunder.

The term "notice" is originated from the Latin word "notifia" which
means "a being known" or a knowing is wide enough in legal circle to
include a plaint filed in a suit. "Notice" has been defined in various Judicial C
Dictionaries and Dictionaries as follows:

The Judicial Dictionary, Words and Phrases Judicially Interpreted Second
Edn. By F. Stroud. (p.1299):

"Notice is a direct and definite statement of a thing, as D
distinguished from supplying materials from which the existence of
such thing may be inferred."

- Webster's Universal College Dictionary, 1997 Edn. (p.543)

"Information, warning or announcement of something impending;
notification; to gjve notice of one's intentions; a written or printed
E

.... statement conveing such infonnation or warning; as for renting or
employment, that the agreement will tenninate on a specified date.
"She gave her employer two weeks' notice."

Oxford Concise Dictionary:
F

"an intimation: intelligence, warning" and has the meaning in
expression like "give notice". "have notice" or "formal intimation of
something or instruction to do something" and has the expression like
"notice to guit", "till further notice". G
Chamber's 20th Century Dictionary 1993 (p.ll54):
,t.'~

"intimation; announcement: infonnation; warning; a writing; placard,
etc; conveying an intimation or warning; time allowed for preparation,
etc." H
)
)I

52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] 2 S.C.R.

A Chamber's Dictionary vide Allied Chambers (India) Ltd.; Reprint 1994,
1995 (p. 1154) -

"intimation; announcement a formal announcement by one of the
parties to a contract of his or her intention to terminate that contract;
information, especially about a future event; warning; a writing;
B placard, board, etc, convening an intimation or warning; time allowed
for preparation; cognizance; observation; heed; mention a dramatic
or a1tisiic review; civility or respectful treatment; a notion. etc."

Law Lexicon Dictionary-A Legal Dictionary ofLegal Terms and Phrases
C Judicially Defined Fourth Edition Vol. II. 1989 (p.226).

'A person is said to have notice' of a fact. When he actually
knows that fact, or when, but for wilful abstention from an enquiry
or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence he would
have known it."
D
The Law Lexicon Dictionary, Second Edition, 1997 (p. I 322):

E
(I) Intimation; a writing; placard, board, etc. conveying an
intimation or warning (section 154. IPC and Article 61(2)(a)
Constitution of India): (2) Knowledge or cognizance (Section 56.
Indian Evidence Act.)

"Notice", in its legal sense, may be defined as information concerning
-
a fact actually communicated to a party by an authorized person, or actually
derived by him from a proper source, or else presumed by law to have been
acquired by him, which information is regarded as equivalent to knowledge
F in its legal consequences.

Dictionary further states:

Comit 309 tom/in's Law Dictionary

G Notice is making something known, of what a man was or might be
ignorant of before. And it produces diverse effects for, by it, the party who
gives the same shall have same benefit, which otherwise he should not have
had; the party to whom the notice is given is made subject to some action or
charge, that otherwise he had not been liable to; and his estate in danger of
H prejudice.
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX v. MIS. SUBHASH & CO. [ARIJITPASAYAT, J.] 53
"Notice is a direct and definite statement of a thing as distinguished A
from supplying materials from which the existence of such thing may be
inferred." (Per Parke. B. Burgh v. Lege SM and W 420; 8 LJ. Ex. 258.

The Dictionary gives some other definitions of "Notice" as:

- The Legal instrumentality by which knowledge is conveyed, or by B
which one is charged with know ledge.

- The term "notice" in its full legal sense embraces a knowledge of
circumstances that ought to induce suspicion or belief, as well as
direct information of that fact.

- In its popular sense "notice" is equivalent to information intelligence,
c
or knowledge.

In Anandji Haridas and Co. (P.) Ltd v. S.P. Kasture and Ors., AIR
(1968) SC 565, it was observed as follows:

"We are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Gokhale that a
D
notice under Section 11 (4) (a) or IIA(l) is a condition precedent for
initiating proceedings under those provisions or that it is the very
foundation for the proceedings to be taken under those provisions.
The notice contemplated under Rule 32 is not similar to a notice to
be issued under Section 34(l)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 1922. All E
that Sections 11(4) and l IA(l) prescribe is that before taking
proceedings against an assessee under those provisions, he should be
given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In fact, those sections
do not speak of any notice. But Rule 32 prescribes the manner in
which the reasonable opportunity contemplated by those provisions
should be afforded to the assessee. The period of 30 days prescribed F
in Rule 32 is to mandatory. The rule itself save that 'ordinarily' not
less than 30 days notice should be given. Therefore, the only question
to be decided is whether the defects noticed in those notices had
prejudiced the appellants. It may be noted that when the assessees
received the notices in question, they appeared before the assessing G
authority, but they did not object to the validity of those notices.
They asked for time for submitting their explanation. The time asked
for was given. Therefore, the fact that only nine days were given to
them for submitting explanation could not have in any manner
prejudiced them. So far as the mistake in the notice as regards the
· assessment year is concerned, the assessees kept silent about that H
I
j

54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A circumstance till 1958. It was only when they were sure that the
period of limitation prescribed by Section I IA had expired, they
brought that fact to the notice of the assessing authority. It is clear
that the appellants were merely trying to take advantage of the mistakes
that had crept into the notices. They cannot be permitted to do so. We
fail to see why those notices are not valid in respect of the periods
B commencing from February I. 1953 till 31.10.55. We are unable to
agree with Mr. Gokhale' s contention that each one of those notices
should be read separately and that we should not consider them
together. If those notices are read together as we think they should .
be, then it is clear that those notices given the appellants the reasonable
c opportunity contemplated by Sections l 1(4)(a) and 11-A (I). In
Chatturam v. Commr. of Income Tax Bihar, (1947) (15) ITR 302.
AIR (1947) FC 32, the Federal Court held that any irregularity in
issuing a notice under S.22 of the Income Tax Act. 1922 does not
vitiate the proceeding; that the income tax assessment proceedings
commence with the issue of the notice but the issue or receipt of the
D notice is, however, not the foundation of the jurisdiction of the income
tax officer to make the assessment or of the liability of the assessee
to pay the tax. The liability to pay the tax is founded on Sections 3
and 4 of the Income Tax Act which are the charging sections. Section
22 and others are the machinery sections to determine the amount of
E tax. The ratio of that decision applies to the facts of the present case.
In our opinion, the notices issued in the year 1955 are valid notices
so far as they relate to the period commencing from February I. 1953
to October 31 1955."

Whenever an order is struck down as invalid being violative of principles
F of natural justice, there is no final decision of the case and, therefore,
proceedings are left open. All that is done is that the order assailed by virtue
of its inherent defect is vacated but the proceedings are not terminated. See
Guduthur Bros v. Income Tax Officer, Special Circle, Bangalore, (1960) 40
ITR 298 SC and Superintendent Tech. I Central Excise I.D.D. Jabalpur and
G Ors., v. Pratan Raj, (1978) 114 ITR 231 SC. In Commissioner of Sales Tax
UP. v. R.P. Dixit Saghidar, [2001] 9 SCC 324, it was held as follows:

"We are unable to subscribe to the view of the High Court. The
aforementioned passage quoted from the Tribunal's order shows that
the Tribunal was of the view that once the order is quashed by the
H Assistant Commissioner he could not in law remand the case for a •
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAXv. M/S. SUBHASH&CO. [ARIJITPASAYAT, J.] 55
decision afresh. As has been noted, before the Assistant Commissioner A
the counsel for the respondent had contended that the ex parte order
should have been set aside because no notice had been received.
When principles of natural justice are stated to have been violated it
is open to the appellate authority, in appropriate cases, to set aside the
order and require the Assessing Officer to decide the cases de nova. B
This is precisely what was directed by the Assistant Commissioner
and the Tribunal. Jn our opinion was clearly in error in taking a
contrary view."

The view is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case.

The emerging principle are:-
c
(i) Non-issue of notice or mistake in the issue of notice or defective
service of notice does not affect the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, if
otherwise reasonable opportunity of being heard had been given;
D
(ii) Issue of notice as prescribed in the Rules constitutes a part of
reasonable opportunity of being heard;

(iii) If prejudice has been caused by non-issue or invalid services of
notice the proceeding would be vitiated. But irregular service of notice would
not render the proceedings invalid; more so, if assessee by his conduct has E
rendered service impracticable or impossible.

(iv) In a given case when the principle of natural justice are stated to
have been violated it is open to the appellate authority in appropriate cases
to set aside the order and require the Assessing Officer to decide the case de
novo. F

In the instant case, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
have not considered the question of prejudice, grant of reasonable opportunity
in the aforesaid perspective.

In view of what has been stated in R.P. Dixit's case (supra), learned G
Single Judge was justified in directing de nova assessment by an order of
remand. The direction was appropriate as the only ground on which the
interference was made related to the violation of principles of natural justice
by alleged improper si:rvice of notice. The Division Bench was not justified
in upsetting the direction. The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances H
.
;i

56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A without any order as to costs.
We ·however make it clear that no opinion has been expressed by us on
any aspect except limitation. It shall be open to the assessee to raise all other
issues before the Assessing Officer, which shall be considered in the proper
perspective and in accordance with law.
B
K.K.T. Appeal allowed.