Premature recovery notice barred when statutory revision period is still open; coercive steps cannot defeat the remedy.

Coercive recovery of tax or penalty should not begin before the statutory period for filing an available appeal or revision has expired. The Madras High Court applied this principle to hold that a recovery notice issued while the petitioner's revision remedy against the appellate order was still within time was premature and arbitrary because it would render the statutory remedy ineffective. The notice was therefore unsustainable and was quashed, leaving the petitioner free to pursue the revision remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the recovery notice issued before expiry of the statutory period for filing revision against the appellate order was valid.

Analysis: The petitioner had a further statutory remedy by way of revision against the order dismissing the second appeal, and the prescribed period for invoking that remedy had not expired when the impugned notice was issued. The Court applied the principle that coercive steps for recovery should not be taken before the expiry of the available appellate or revisional period, as premature recovery would render the statutory remedy ineffective and is arbitrary.

Conclusion: The recovery notice was not sustainable and was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed and the impugned notice was quashed, leaving the petitioner free to pursue the statutory revision remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Coercive recovery of tax or penalty cannot be initiated before the expiry of the statutory period available for appeal or revision against the underlying order.

---