Income-tax recovery limits arrest of women and legal representatives, but inherited house remains attachable despite state exemption.

Rule 81 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act bars arrest and detention of a woman, and Rule 85 allows recovery against legal representatives of a deceased defaulter but not by arrest or detention. The recovery machinery may therefore proceed against heirs for the tax dues, subject to that limitation. A residential-house exemption inserted by section 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Debt Reduction Act, 1976, read with clause (ccc) in section 60(1) CPC, applies only within that Act's limited framework and does not create a general protection against income-tax recovery. The inherited house remained available for attachment and sale under the Income-tax Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second petitioner, being a woman, and the petitioners as legal representatives of the deceased defaulter could be proceeded against by arrest or detention in income-tax recovery proceedings under the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the residential house inherited from the deceased defaulter was exempt from attachment and sale by reason of section 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Debt Reduction Act, 1976 and clause (ccc) inserted in section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the second petitioner, being a woman, and the petitioners as legal representatives of the deceased defaulter could be proceeded against by arrest or detention in income-tax recovery proceedings under the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Rule 81 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 bars arrest and detention of a woman. Rule 85 of the same Schedule permits recovery proceedings to continue against the legal representatives of a deceased defaulter, but excepts arrest and detention. The recovery machinery could therefore proceed against the heirs for dues, but not by arrest in the case of the woman petitioner or by detention against the legal representatives in respect of the deceased defaulter.

Conclusion: The petitioners could not be subjected to arrest or detention in the manner sought by the revenue authorities; this issue was answered in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the residential house inherited from the deceased defaulter was exempt from attachment and sale by reason of section 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Debt Reduction Act, 1976 and clause (ccc) inserted in section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Debt Reduction Act, 1976 applies the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 only to proceedings under that Act, and section 21 inserts the residential-house protection only for that limited statutory setting. The amendment was held not to be a general amendment to the Code for all proceedings in the State. The house property, though in the hands of the petitioners, was therefore not exempt from recovery under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Second Schedule thereto.

Conclusion: The residential house was not immune from attachment and sale in income-tax recovery proceedings; this issue was answered against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the special protection under the Himachal Pradesh Debt Reduction Act, 1976 did not extend to income-tax recovery proceedings, and the inherited house remained available for recovery of the tax dues in accordance with the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Second Schedule thereto.

Ratio Decidendi: A State-law amendment inserting an exemption into section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 operates only within the limited framework of the special enactment that adopts the Code, and does not create a general exemption against recovery under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

---