Valid statutory demand notice is a condition precedent to revenue recovery and detention; defective notice defeats coercive action.

A subordinate revenue officer in charge of a division may exercise the Collector's powers under sections 48 and 49 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, because the 1828 Regulation operates ex officio and was not impliedly repealed by the 1961 Delegation Act. However, recovery proceedings require a valid statutory foundation: the demand notice under section 16(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 had to allow the prescribed period, or a shorter period supported by recorded reasons. As the notice granted only seven days without recorded reasons, it was invalid, the tax was not lawfully in arrears, and detention based on that notice could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Revenue Divisional Officer had jurisdiction to issue a warrant of arrest and detention of a defaulter under section 48 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864; (ii) Whether the demand notice under section 16(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 was valid and whether, in its absence, the petitioner could be treated as a defaulter liable to arrest and detention.

Issue (i): Whether a Revenue Divisional Officer had jurisdiction to issue a warrant of arrest and detention of a defaulter under section 48 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864.

Analysis: Section 48 confers the coercive power of arrest and detention on the Collector. The Court held that section 3(1) of the Madras Subordinate Collectors and Revenue Malversation (Amendment) Regulation, 1828 operates ex officio and enables a Subordinate, Deputy or Assistant Collector in charge of a division to exercise within that division all the powers of the Collector under laws in force, unless a contrary intention is expressly declared. The later Andhra Pradesh District Collectors' Powers (Delegation) Act, 1961 was held to be reconcilable with that Regulation and not an implied repeal of it. Reading the enactments harmoniously, the Court concluded that a Revenue Divisional Officer or similar subordinate revenue officer in charge of a division could exercise the Collector's powers under sections 48 and 49 within the limits of that division.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was rejected, and the Revenue Divisional Officer was held competent to issue the warrant within his division.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand notice under section 16(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 was valid and whether, in its absence, the petitioner could be treated as a defaulter liable to arrest and detention.

Analysis: Recovery under the Revenue Recovery Act could be attracted only if the tax had become an arrear lawfully recoverable. Section 16(1) required at least fifteen days from service of the assessment notice, or at least seven days for recorded good and sufficient reasons. The notice relied on by the department granted only seven days but recorded no reasons for curtailing the period. The Court treated compliance with the statutory requirement as a condition precedent to valid recovery and held that the notice was invalid. Without a valid demand notice, the petitioner could not be treated as being in arrears, and the foundation for action under sections 48 and 49 failed.

Conclusion: The demand notice was invalid and the petitioner was not a defaulter; the arrest and detention were unlawful.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded because the recovery proceedings lacked a valid statutory foundation, and the detenu was entitled to immediate release.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory recovery depends on a valid notice and the notice is a condition precedent, non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirement vitiates the recovery and any detention founded on it; subordinate revenue officers in charge of a division may exercise the Collector's powers under section 48 by virtue of the continuing ex officio scheme of the 1828 Regulation, unless expressly excluded.

---