Mandatory notice of demand is a precondition to sales tax recovery; without it, certificate proceedings fail and civil suit lies.

Service of notice of demand under section 13(4) was treated as a condition precedent to liability and to recovery as arrears of land revenue under the Orissa sales tax law. Because the notice was not served, the assessed amount never acquired the character of a recoverable public demand, and the certificate proceeding lacked statutory foundation and was not maintainable. The civil court's jurisdiction was not excluded merely because the assessment itself could not be reopened; where mandatory preconditions for recovery were absent, the court could examine the legality of the certificate proceeding. The challenge to recovery therefore succeeded, while the assessment remained immune from attack on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the absence of service of notice of demand under section 13(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act prevented the assessed amount from becoming recoverable as an arrear of land revenue and, therefore, as a public demand under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act; (ii) whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred from entertaining the suit challenging the certificate proceeding in the circumstances of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the absence of service of notice of demand under section 13(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act prevented the assessed amount from becoming recoverable as an arrear of land revenue and, therefore, as a public demand under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act.

Analysis: Section 13(4) made service of a notice of demand a prerequisite for payment within the prescribed time, and section 13(7) allowed recovery as arrears of land revenue only after non-payment in pursuance of such notice. The definition of public demand under the recovery statute extended only to amounts legally recoverable as arrears of revenue or land revenue. Since the notice contemplated by section 13(4) had not been served, the amount never acquired the character of a recoverable public demand and the certificate proceeding lacked the statutory foundation for recovery.

Conclusion: The amount did not become recoverable as an arrear of land revenue or a public demand, and the certificate proceeding was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred from entertaining the suit challenging the certificate proceeding in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: Although section 22 of the sales tax law barred a challenge to the assessment itself, the suit did not seek to reopen the assessment on merits. The civil court's jurisdiction is not readily excluded, and it remains available where mandatory statutory provisions have not been complied with or where the authority acts without jurisdiction. Since the certificate officer could proceed only after the statutory preconditions were satisfied, and those preconditions were absent, the civil court could examine the legality of the recovery proceeding notwithstanding the statutory bar.

Conclusion: The civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit to the extent it challenged the recovery proceedings, and the statutory bar did not defeat that relief.

Final Conclusion: The recovery machinery could not be invoked without compliance with the mandatory notice requirement, and the suit was maintainable insofar as it assailed the certificate proceeding; the assessee's challenge to recovery succeeded while the assessment itself remained immune from attack.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service of notice of demand is a condition precedent to liability to pay and to recovery as arrears of land revenue, non-service prevents the amount from becoming a public demand and deprives the certificate authority of jurisdiction; a civil suit is maintainable to question such void recovery proceedings notwithstanding a bar against challenging the assessment on merits.

---