Re-arrest of tax defaulters in civil prison requires positive material of means to pay or fraud, not mechanical detention.

Re-arrest of a sales tax defaulter in civil prison is not barred in every case, but it cannot be ordered mechanically after an earlier detention. The recovery framework under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 permits dues to be recovered as arrears of land revenue and allows transfers made to defeat revenue to be treated as void, yet repeated detention is justified only where there is positive material showing present means to pay or a deliberate attempt to defraud the revenue. Mere inability to pay, including genuine insolvency, does not warrant further detention because it serves no practical recovery purpose. Limited protection was therefore given against immediate re-arrest, while the authorities retained power to act again on fresh material.

---

---

Issues: Whether a sales tax defaulter can be re-arrested and detained in civil prison after having already undergone detention for 40 days; and whether such re-arrest is permissible only on the basis of positive material showing means to pay or a deliberate attempt to defraud the revenue.

Analysis: The recovery provisions under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 permit tax dues to be recovered as arrears of land revenue and also allow voiding of transfers made to defraud revenue. The reasoning drew support from the principles governing arrest in execution proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure and from constitutional protection of personal liberty, while distinguishing mere inability to pay from dishonest evasion. Re-arrest was treated as justified only where there is some positive information that the defaulter has means to pay or has clandestinely transferred property to defeat recovery. Where the person is genuinely unable to pay and is in effect penniless, repeated detention would serve no useful recovery purpose.

Conclusion: Re-arrest is not barred in all cases, but it cannot be ordered mechanically after a prior detention of 40 days. It is permissible only if the department has positive material indicating means to pay or fraudulent conduct. Until such material is gathered, the petitioner was protected from re-arrest.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by granting limited protection against immediate re-arrest while preserving the revenue authorities' power to proceed again on the basis of fresh material.

Ratio Decidendi: Re-arrest of a tax defaulter in civil prison is lawful only when supported by positive material showing present means to pay or a deliberate attempt to defeat recovery by fraud or concealment; mere repeated detention of a genuinely insolvent person is not justified.

---