Recovery against legal representatives requires statutory default procedure; prior writ findings can bar renewed challenges to settled tax liability.

Recovery against a legal representative cannot be enforced on the basis of certificates issued after the assessee's death unless the representative is separately brought within the statutory default procedure, including proper demand and declaration as defaulter; the disputed certificates therefore could not sustain recovery. At the same time, a prior writ judgment can operate as res judicata or constructive res judicata in later recovery litigation, so challenges to the settled liability and issues that were already decided or ought to have been raised earlier remain barred. The article thus distinguishes between invalid post-death certificate enforcement and the preclusive effect of earlier final writ findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the eleven recovery certificates issued after the death of the assessee could be enforced against the legal representatives. (ii) Whether the earlier writ judgment, as confirmed in appeal, operated as res judicata so as to bar the legal representatives from challenging the exigibility and recovery of the tax, penalty and interest.

Issue (i): Whether the eleven recovery certificates issued after the death of the assessee could be enforced against the legal representatives.

Analysis: Recovery against a legal representative must proceed in accordance with the statutory scheme governing assessment and recovery. A legal representative is liable to the same extent as the deceased, but recovery proceedings under the certificate procedure can be pursued against such representative only where the representative has been treated as an assessee in default, or where the case falls within the limited exception under the recovery-rule provision permitting continuation of an existing certificate after the defaulter's death. The disputed certificates had been forwarded after the assessee's death, and the Revenue had not shown that the legal representatives were separately served with demand notices and declared defaulters. The attempt to treat corrected certificates as fresh certificates could not cure that defect.

Conclusion: The eleven certificates were not enforceable in law against the legal representatives, and this issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier writ judgment, as confirmed in appeal, operated as res judicata so as to bar the legal representatives from challenging the exigibility and recovery of the tax, penalty and interest.

Analysis: A decision in writ proceedings can operate as res judicata or constructive res judicata where the same parties seek to reopen matters already finally decided. The earlier judgment had upheld the settlements and had also recognised the recoverability of the dues under the applicable recovery framework. The matters now sought to be reagitated had either been concluded earlier or could and ought to have been raised in the previous proceedings. The challenge based on lack of authority of law also failed because the liabilities arose from valid settlements recorded under the statutory settlement scheme.

Conclusion: The earlier judgment operated as res judicata to the extent of the issues already concluded, and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The recovery action could not be sustained against the legal representatives on the basis of the eleven disputed certificates, but the broader challenge to the settled liability was barred to the extent it had already been finally decided in earlier proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery from a legal representative cannot be enforced on the basis of a certificate issued after the assessee's death unless the representative is separately brought within the statutory default procedure, and matters finally decided in earlier writ proceedings may operate as res judicata in later recovery challenges.

---