Mandatory procedure for tax recovery detention protects personal liberty and supports habeas corpus relief for unlawful confinement.

Detention in civil prison for recovery of income-tax dues was treated as unlawful where the mandatory steps under the Second Schedule were not followed. Proper notice, valid service, an effective show-cause opportunity, and recorded satisfaction by the Tax Recovery Officer were required; defective notice, unproved service, and an order lacking reasons on the detenu's means or refusal to pay vitiated the detention. The procedural safeguards were treated as mandatory because they protect personal liberty. Habeas corpus was held maintainable where detention is without jurisdiction or shows an error of law on the face of the record, even in a tax recovery matter, and release was warranted, leaving the revenue free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether detention in civil prison for recovery of income-tax dues was vitiated by non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether a writ of habeas corpus was maintainable to secure release from such detention.

Analysis: The detention power under section 222 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Second Schedule was held to be subject to strict compliance with the prescribed steps, including proper notice, service, show-cause opportunity, and a reasoned satisfaction recorded by the Tax Recovery Officer. The notice under rule 2 was found defective and incomplete, the manner of service was not duly established, and the order under rule 76 did not disclose the basis for the conclusion that the detenu had means to pay or had refused to pay. The judgment treats the procedural requirements as mandatory safeguards protecting personal liberty, and holds that deviation from them vitiates the detention. It further holds that habeas corpus is available where detention is without jurisdiction or suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record, even though the proceeding relates to civil debt recovery.

Conclusion: The detention was illegal for breach of mandatory procedure, and the writ of habeas corpus was maintainable; release was therefore warranted.

Final Conclusion: The order of detention could not be sustained, but the revenue authorities were left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law for recovery of the tax dues.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory recovery provisions that affect personal liberty prescribe mandatory notice, service, hearing, and recorded satisfaction, non-compliance renders the detention without jurisdiction and amenable to habeas corpus relief.

---