Collateral challenge to tax assessment barred in recovery proceedings; executing court cannot reopen the assessed demand.

Where a taxing statute provides specific appellate and revisional remedies against an assessment, the validity of that assessment cannot be challenged collaterally in a recovery proceeding. The recovery court or Magistrate is confined to executing the demand and cannot go behind the assessment order or examine its legality. Section 32 barred questioning the assessment in such proceedings, and section 35 independently prevented any attempt to set aside or modify the assessment except through the Act's express remedies. The assessee's jurisdictional objection therefore failed, and the recovery action stood on the assessed demand.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in proceedings for recovery of sales tax under section 13(3)(b), the assessee could question the validity of the assessment and defeat the recovery.

Analysis: The assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act had already been made, and the statutory scheme under the Mysore Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act provided distinct remedies by way of appeal and revision against the assessment. The Court held that the recovery proceeding before the Magistrate was only for execution of the demand and that the Magistrate could not go behind the assessment order or examine its legality. Section 32 barred questioning the validity of the assessment, and even on the assumption that section 32 did not apply, section 35 independently prohibited any proceeding to set aside or modify an assessment except as expressly provided by the Act.

Conclusion: The assessee could not challenge the assessment in the recovery proceeding, and the objection to jurisdiction failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute provides specific appellate and revisional remedies against an assessment, the validity of that assessment cannot be collaterally assailed in a subsequent recovery proceeding, and the recovery court is confined to executing the demand.

---