Revenue recovery by arrest upheld where property sale was unlikely to satisfy arrears and evasion was supported by surrounding conduct.

Arrest and imprisonment under the revenue recovery law are treated as an alternative recovery mode, so prior actual sale of the defaulter's property is not a condition precedent where the Collector can rationally conclude that sale would not substantially satisfy the arrears. The Collector's belief that payment was being wilfully withheld or fraudulently evaded was supported by concealment of accounts, alienation of property, discontinuance of business, and similar conduct. A joint-family defence also failed where the petitioner was the registered dealer and, in any event, the business discontinuance attracted joint and several liability. Execution of the arrest warrant by a police officer was held lawful in the absence of a statutory restriction.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether arrest and imprisonment under the revenue recovery law could be ordered without first actually bringing the defaulter's property to sale; (ii) whether there was material to support the Collector's belief that the defaulter was wilfully withholding payment or acting fraudulently to evade payment; (iii) whether the petitioner could avoid liability on the ground that the debt was that of a Hindu undivided family; and (iv) whether a warrant of arrest under the Act could be executed by a police officer.

Issue (i): whether arrest and imprisonment under the revenue recovery law could be ordered without first actually bringing the defaulter's property to sale.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated sale of property and arrest of the person as alternative modes of recovery. The requirement that arrears could not be liquidated by sale of property did not mean that the property must invariably be put to auction in every case. Where the value of the property was plainly far below the demand and the Collector could rationally conclude that sale would not satisfy the arrears to any substantial extent, prior actual sale was not necessary.

Conclusion: The requirement of prior actual sale was not a condition precedent, and the arrest order was valid on this ground.

Issue (ii): whether there was material to support the Collector's belief that the defaulter was wilfully withholding payment or acting fraudulently to evade payment.

Analysis: The surrounding circumstances included concealment of business accounts, alienation of property, discontinuance of business, continuation of the same business in other names, and non-registration of lorries in the petitioner's name. Those facts furnished adequate material for a rational belief that payment was being deliberately withheld and that the petitioner was adopting devices to defeat recovery.

Conclusion: The Collector had sufficient material to form the requisite belief, and the arrest and imprisonment were justified.

Issue (iii): whether the petitioner could avoid liability on the ground that the debt was that of a Hindu undivided family.

Analysis: The records showed that the petitioner himself was the registered dealer and had conducted the business in his own name. Even on the alternative assumption that the business had belonged to a Hindu undivided family, discontinuance of the business attracted the rule making every member jointly and severally liable for the tax and penalty.

Conclusion: The joint-family contention failed and did not protect the petitioner from recovery proceedings.

Issue (iv): whether a warrant of arrest under the Act could be executed by a police officer.

Analysis: The procedural provision governing arrest did not restrict execution to revenue officials alone. In the absence of a statutory prohibition, entrustment of the warrant to the Deputy Superintendent of Police was not illegal.

Conclusion: Execution of the warrant by a police officer was lawful.

Final Conclusion: The revenue recovery action was held to be lawful in all material respects, and the writ petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the revenue recovery statute, arrest of a defaulter is a permissible mode of recovery when sale of property would not realistically liquidate the arrears and the Collector has rational material to believe that payment is being wilfully withheld or fraudulently evaded; the Act does not require prior actual sale or restrict execution of the warrant to revenue officers alone.

---