Successor recovery under repealed income-tax law does not require prior hearing before recording inability to recover from predecessor.

Recovery against a successor under the repealing and successor income-tax provisions was held to remain available for sums payable under the repealed Act, and the language preserving action already taken did not make prior steps under the repealed law a condition precedent. The successor was not entitled to notice before the officer recorded that recovery could not be made from the predecessor; notice was required only before recovery proceedings were initiated against the successor. The reference was not answered, however, because the assessment order and connected records were not before the Court, preventing a specific determination on the factual matrix.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether recovery against a successor in respect of an assessment made under the repealed law could be pursued under the new law without prior action under the repealed law and without notice to the successor before recording the finding that recovery could not be made from the predecessor. (ii) Whether the reference questions could be answered in the absence of the assessment order and connected records.

Issue (i): Recovery under the repealing provision was available in respect of sums payable under the repealed Act. The words protecting action already taken under the repealed law were held to preserve existing recovery steps, not to make them a condition precedent. The successor was held not to have a right of hearing before the officer recorded the finding that the amount could not be recovered from the predecessor; notice was required only before recovery proceedings were taken against the successor.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's view imposing those additional conditions was incorrect, and the statutory scheme permitted recovery against the successor subject to the recording of the necessary finding and subsequent opportunity of hearing.

Issue (ii): The reference could not be effectively answered because the relevant assessment records and the order under the repealed provision were not before the Court. Without the material documents, the questions referred could not be specifically determined on the factual matrix.

Conclusion: The Court declined to answer the referred questions for want of the necessary record.

Final Conclusion: The judgment clarified the legal position on successor-based recovery under the repealed and successor income-tax provisions, but the reference itself was left unanswered due to absence of the essential assessment materials.

Ratio Decidendi: Where recovery is statutorily transferred from a predecessor to a successor, the statute requiring a finding that recovery cannot be made from the predecessor does not confer a prior hearing right before that finding is recorded, and protective language preserving earlier recovery steps does not make such steps a condition precedent to recovery under the successor enactment.

---