Fraud in tax recovery must be specifically pleaded and proved; an erroneous order alone will not defeat statutory remedies.

Allegations that a tax recovery proceeding was tainted by fraud failed where the record showed a fresh enquiry after remand, notices to both sides, and a determination of the amount payable on the material produced. Fraud was treated as a fact-intensive allegation requiring specific pleading and strict proof; a merely erroneous or disputed recovery decision was not enough. In the absence of proved fraud, the statutory recovery machinery under the Income-tax Act provided the proper remedy, and the civil court could not interfere. On that basis, the challenge to the recovery order failed and the civil suit was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summary order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer was liable to be set aside on the ground of fraud and whether the civil suit was maintainable in view of the statutory bar under the Income-tax Act.

Analysis: The challenge rested on allegations that the recovery proceedings were vitiated by fraud and that the certificate was acted upon without proper credit being given for amounts already paid. The Court held that the earlier remand had resulted in a fresh enquiry, notices were issued, and the Tax Recovery Officer had determined the amount payable after considering the material placed by both sides. Fraud was treated as a question of fact carrying a heavy burden of proof, and the pleadings and evidence did not establish fraud. The Court drew a distinction between an erroneous decision and fraud, observing that a wrong decision does not become vulnerable merely because it is alleged to be incorrect. It further accepted that the statutory machinery under the Income-tax Act afforded the relevant remedies and that the civil court could not interfere in the absence of fraud.

Conclusion: The order was not liable to be set aside, the civil suit was not maintainable, and the decision was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because no fraud was proved and the dispute had to be pursued through the remedies available under the tax statute.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere assertion of incorrect recovery or erroneous assessment does not constitute fraud; fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved, and in the absence of such proof the civil court will not unsettle proceedings governed by the statutory recovery mechanism.

---