Recovery notice for misappropriated amount upheld where liability was fixed and statutory power to sell distrained property existed.

An auction notice for recovery of misappropriated amounts was upheld where disciplinary proceedings had already fixed the liability and quantified the sum due. The court treated the notice as a proposed recovery step, not an independent adjudication, and rejected the claim that the amount remained unascertained. It also held that Section 17-C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 empowered the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer to exercise the powers of the Mandal Revenue Officer for sale of distrained property, so the jurisdiction challenge failed. Recovery under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, together with interest, was therefore permitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned notice proposing auction of the petitioner's house for recovery of the misappropriated amount was without jurisdiction or illegal, and whether the liability and amount recoverable had been ascertained.

Analysis: The disciplinary proceedings had culminated in a final order fixing the amount misappropriated by the petitioner at Rs. 34,912.88, so the contention that the liability was unascertained was rejected. Section 17-C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 conferred power on the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer to exercise the powers of the Mandal Revenue Officer for sale of property distrained for recovery of amounts due under the Act, thereby negativing the challenge to jurisdiction. The notice was only an intimation of proposed recovery, and in the absence of payment the authority was entitled to proceed under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 for recovery of the ascertained amount with interest.

Conclusion: The challenge to the recovery notice failed, and the proposed recovery action was held to be within jurisdiction.

---