Revenue recovery outside the originating district and no reopening of unchallenged penalty levy at execution stage.

Revenue recovery proceedings could be initiated in another district under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, because section 3 authorises enforcement of public demands outside the district where the demand arose; the Madras recovery steps were therefore maintainable. The writ court also declined to examine the validity of the penalty levy under section 36(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 at the execution stage, since the penalty orders had already been pursued in appeal and then left unchallenged. A writ petition directed only against the recovery memo was not the proper forum to reopen the original levy or constitutional challenge.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether recovery proceedings could be initiated in another district under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 for sales tax dues payable in Bombay; (ii) whether the writ court should, at the execution stage, examine the validity of the penalty levy under section 36(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Issue (i): whether recovery proceedings could be initiated in another district under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 for sales tax dues payable in Bombay.

Analysis: Section 3 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 permits recovery of public demands by enforcement of process in districts other than the district in which the demand became payable. The Act operates throughout the country, and the Collector of a district may act even when the demand originated elsewhere. On that footing, the mere fact that the recovery steps were taken in Madras did not deprive the first respondent of authority to proceed.

Conclusion: The objection to jurisdiction failed and the recovery proceedings were held maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the writ court should, at the execution stage, examine the validity of the penalty levy under section 36(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis: The petitioner had already carried the penalty orders in appeal before the statutory appellate authority, and the appellate orders had remained unchallenged for a long time. The present proceedings were only recovery measures in the nature of execution. In those circumstances, the Court declined to reopen the original levy or to test the constitutional validity of the penalty provision in a petition directed only against the recovery memo. The proper forum to impeach the Bombay orders was the courts at Bombay, not a writ petition at the stage of enforcement.

Conclusion: The challenge to the penalty levy was not entertained in the present writ petition.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for interference at the recovery stage, and the revenue authorities were left free to continue the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where tax liability has already been reduced to enforceable recovery proceedings, a writ court will not ordinarily reopen the original levy or constitutional challenge if the assessee has allowed the substantive orders to remain unchallenged and the recovery statute authorises execution in another district.

---