Sales tax recoverable as land revenue where statute so provides; Tahsildar-led recovery and parallel recovery enactments upheld.

Unpaid sales tax may be recovered as arrears of land revenue where the taxing statute and rules expressly so provide, allowing use of the land-revenue machinery under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Recovery steps may be validly taken by the Tahsildar when acting on the Collector's direction, since the statutory scheme does not require the Collector to act personally. Section 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 preserves other enactments dealing with recovery of arrears as land revenue, so it does not exclude operation of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for such dues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether arrears of sales tax were recoverable as arrears of land revenue under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act; (ii) whether proceedings for recovery could validly be initiated by the Tahsildar on the Collector's direction; (iii) whether the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 excluded the operation of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

Issue (i): Whether arrears of sales tax were recoverable as arrears of land revenue under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

Analysis: Section 8(8) of the Sales Tax Act and Rule 50 of the rules framed under it expressly made unpaid sales tax recoverable as arrears of land revenue. Once the tax liability was statutorily converted into a recoverable land-revenue demand, recovery could proceed under the land-revenue machinery provided by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Section 288 of that Act was also explained as a provision enabling recovery of arrears already due in the pre-existing legal regime.

Conclusion: The arrears of sales tax were recoverable as arrears of land revenue, and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings for recovery could validly be initiated by the Tahsildar on the Collector's direction.

Analysis: The record showed that the Sales Tax Officer addressed the recovery request to the Collector, and the Collector in turn directed the Tahsildar to proceed. The Tahsildar acted pursuant to that direction, and the statutory machinery did not require the recovery steps to be taken only by the Collector personally.

Conclusion: The recovery proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar were valid.

Issue (iii): Whether the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 excluded the operation of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

Analysis: Section 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act preserved the effect of other enactments dealing with recovery of land revenue or sums recoverable as arrears of land revenue. The two enactments were therefore not mutually exclusive, and the later U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act could operate alongside the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of such dues.

Conclusion: The Revenue Recovery Act did not exclude the operation of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the recovery proceedings failed on all grounds, and the assessees remained liable to recovery of the sales tax arrears through the land-revenue machinery.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute makes the dues recoverable as arrears of land revenue, they may be recovered through the statutory land-revenue machinery, and a general recovery enactment does not displace a later special enactment preserving such recovery.

---