M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition coming up for prelimmary hearing after notice to respondent is disposed of by the following order. The Counsel appearing for parties have been heard. ( 2 ) THE petitioners have impugned in this writ petition the legality and ocrrectness of the assessment order made by the respondents-Agricultural income Tax Officer, Dharwar, under sec. 19 (4) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). For the assessment year 1976-77, the petitioners not having filed their returns under the Act, were served with notices under Sec. 18 (2) read with Sec. 36 of the Act on more than one occasion. Finally, they appeared before the respondent and produced certain documents. On the basis of the documents produced, and having regard to the evasive tactics adopted by the petitioners, the respondent issued notice in form No. 5 prescribed under the Karnataka Agricultural income Tax Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) proposing to assess the petitioners for tax due in respect of 160 acres of 'j' class lands cultivated by them. He estimated the gross income of the petitioners liable to tax at Rs. 26,848 and further proposed to tax at 60 per cent of the said income treating the remaining 40% as expenses incurred for cultivation. He further invited objections to the said proposal by 19-3-1979. The notice was dated 8-3-1979. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that they received the said notice in form No. 5 on 19-3-1979 itself by registered post for acknowledgment due and and therefore were not able to file their objections and were surprised to receive the final assessment order dated 28-4-1978 made under Sec. 19 (4) of the Act (Best judgment assessment ). Aggrieved by the same, they have approached this Court under art. 226 of the Constitution contending that the impugned assessment order, a true copy of which is produced at fxt-B is illegal inasmuch as the same is passed without an opportunity bring afforded to them as required by the second proviso to Sec. 19 of the Act. ( 4 ) SHRI Venkatachalaiah,, learned high Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, has, solely depended on the records of the case to demonstrate that notice was indeed sent to the petitioners in form no. ( 4 ) SHRI Venkatachalaiah,, learned high Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, has, solely depended on the records of the case to demonstrate that notice was indeed sent to the petitioners in form no. 5 and the same was received by the petitioners and therefore the petitioners cannot be permitted to take the stand that they have not been given an opportunity of being heard. He has further contended that after receiving the notice on 19-3-1979, it was the duty of the petitioners to ascertain the next date of hearing and it was not necessary for the respondent to issue a fresh notice fixing another date of hearing. He has also contended that the writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioners had an alternative remedy under Sec. 21 of the Act for having the assessment order set aside showing sufficient cause. ( 5 ) SHRI M. Rama Bhai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has advanced only the contention pleaded, by placing reliance on a division Bench Ruling of this Court in the case of Mallappa Kallappa v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer, (1973) 2 Mys. L. J. 425. . He has further pointed out that the rules are silent as to what should happen if the notice issued by the authorities under the Act was not served in time to appear before the authorities on the date specified in the notice. He has, therefore, argued that in order to satisfy the requirement of second proviso to Sec. 19 of the Act, it is incumbent on the respondent income-Tax Officer to issue a fresh notice because what is contemplated under the second proviso to Sec. 19 of the Act is a reasonable opportunity and not a mere empty formality of issuing notice under Sec. 19 (4) of the act. ( 6 ) THERE is some force in the contention advanced for the petitioners. From the facts set out in the ruling of the Division Bench referred to earlier, which are somewhat identical to some extent with the facts of the present case on hand, it is clear that in the decided case the Agricultural Income tax Officer concerned had in fact issued a fresh notice when the 1st notice was served two days after the date set out for hearing. The second notice required the assessee therein to file his objections, if any, within a specified number of days after receipt of the no- fice. In that case, in response to such second notice, the petitioner through counsel filed his objections. But the concerned Agricultural Income Tax officer proceeded to assess the petitioner in frat case without giving him an opportunity of being heard in the light of the objections filed. Therefore, this Court came to the conclusion that it was clear from the perusal of the notice dated 12-5-197j that respondent had merely directed the assessee to preobjections, if any, to the proposition notice but did not fix another date of hearing and in that view of the mater, the Court held that the order of asessment impugned therein could not be sustained. Shri Rama Bhat really placed reliance on the procedure followed by the Income Tax Officer concerned in the aforementioned derision in issuing a second notice because the 1st notice had not bean served on the petitioner before the date specified in the notice. ( 7 ) ON a perusal of the records produced by the learned Government pleader it is clear that the notice was served on the petitioners herein on on 19-3-79 at their village. The acknowledgment was received back at dharwar on 23-3 1979 This itself indicates that Bannur, the place of residence of the petitioners, is somewhat distantly situated from Dhanvar City where the respondent has his office. If the notice was received on 19-3-1979, it is reasonable to presume that the petitioners could not on that date reach Dharwar in response to the notice and appear before the respondent. It is equally clear that the respondent became aware that the notice had been served only on 19-3-1979 on or after 23-3-1979, the date on which the postal acknowledgement was returned to Dharwar Post Office, as evidenced by the postal seal. It was therefore necessary for the respondent to issue a fresh notice fixing another date of hearing and inviting objections, if any, from the petitioners. It is only then that this Court can construe the reasonableness of the opportunity contemplated under the second proviso to Sec 19 of the Act. It was therefore necessary for the respondent to issue a fresh notice fixing another date of hearing and inviting objections, if any, from the petitioners. It is only then that this Court can construe the reasonableness of the opportunity contemplated under the second proviso to Sec 19 of the Act. If the respondent left quiet even after realising that the notice had not been served in time for the appearance of the petitioners, he cannot be vested with jurisdiction to proceed on the assumption that the petitioners should have approached in time after 19-3-1979. The Rules as earlier stated are silent on the subject. The impugned order of assessment must be held to have been made without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. For that reason, the order cannot be sustained and therefore it is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) THIS only leaves me to deal with the second contention raised for the respondent that there is an alternative remedy which the petitioners did not make use of and therefore this Court should retrain from exercising its jurisdiction under Act. 226 of the Consttution. This argument has really no force because inadequate opportunity goes to the very root of jurisdiction and in such cases where there is clear want of jurisdiction for the respondent to proceed with the completion of the assessment, then this court under Art. 220 of the Constitution, in spite of the alternative remedy, should interfere when it is satisfied about the inherent lack of jurisdiction. ( 9 ) IN the result, the assessment, order at Ext-B bearing the date 28-4-1979 passed by the respondent is set aside. Consequently, the order of penalty imposed for concealment under Sec. 22 of the Act as also the demand notice under Sec. 21 (2) of the Act, at Exhibits C and D respectively are also set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent Agricultural Income tax Officer, Dharwar, to continue the proceedings from the stage of issue of proposition notice. It is made clear that it is unnecessary for the respondent to issue a fresh notice in form No. 5. The petitioners shall appear before the respondent-Agricultural Income tax Officer on 30-4-1980 and show cause to the proposition notice received by them on 19-3-1979 and co-operate with the respondent to complete the assessment proceedings in accordance with the law. It is made clear that it is unnecessary for the respondent to issue a fresh notice in form No. 5. The petitioners shall appear before the respondent-Agricultural Income tax Officer on 30-4-1980 and show cause to the proposition notice received by them on 19-3-1979 and co-operate with the respondent to complete the assessment proceedings in accordance with the law. ( 10 ) IN the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. ( 11 ) SHRI Venkatachalaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader, is permitted to file his memo of appearance within 14 days from today. --- *** --- .