Donee liability under Gift-tax Act upheld as writ interference was refused against recovery proceedings.

Section 29 of the Gift-tax Act fastens liability on the donee where the donor defaults in payment of gift-tax, and recovery may validly shift to the donee in accordance with the statutory scheme. On the facts, the revenue's proposed attachment and recovery action was supported by the record, and the writ court found no arbitrariness, perversity, or absence of basis warranting interference under Article 226. The petitioner had also not effectively pursued objections before the Gift-tax Officer. The Kerala HC therefore declined to interfere and upheld the recovery proceedings against the donee.

---

---

Issues: Whether recovery proceedings could be initiated against the donee under section 29 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 when the donor defaulted, and whether the writ court should interfere with the proposed attachment and recovery action.

Analysis: Section 29 casts liability on the donee where the donor has defaulted in payment of gift-tax, and the stage at which recovery shifts from the donor to the donee is governed by the statute. On the facts, the revenue's long-pending recovery efforts and the materials before the authority did not show that the decision to proceed against the petitioner was arbitrary, perverse, or without basis. The petitioner had not effectively pursued his objections before the Gift-tax Officer, and the record did not justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The recovery action against the donee was upheld and interference in writ jurisdiction was declined.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the statutory recovery machinery against the donee was validly invoked and no ground for judicial interference was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute expressly fastens liability on the donee upon the donor's default, recovery proceedings will not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction absent arbitrariness, perversity, or lack of basis in the authority's decision.

---