Recovery certificate irregularity and laches defeat challenge where prior recovery steps saved limitation and conduct was collusive.

A recovery certificate under section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 is not invalid merely because of an imperfect description or other procedural irregularity where the certificate and later recovery steps show a bona fide attempt to realise assessed arrears; prior attachment and related measures can save limitation under section 46(7), and the later certificate was treated as part of the earlier recovery process. Writ relief under article 226 may also be refused where the challenge is brought after unexplained delay and the petitioner's conduct is tainted by collusive transfer of property to defeat recovery. On these grounds, the recovery action was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the recovery certificates issued under section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 were invalid or barred by limitation and whether the subsequent certificate was a continuation of the earlier proceedings; (ii) whether the petition deserved interference under article 226 in view of delay and the petitioner's conduct.

Issue (i): Whether the recovery certificates issued under section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 were invalid or barred by limitation and whether the subsequent certificate was a continuation of the earlier proceedings.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under section 46(2) permitted the Income-tax Officer to forward a certificate for recovery of arrears to the Collector, and section 46(7) required recovery proceedings to commence within the prescribed period, saving limitation where some action had already been taken to recover the dues. The first certificate, though imperfectly described, was treated as issued in aid of recovery against the Hindu undivided family through its karta and was held to suffer only from an irregularity, not nullity. The later certificate was linked to the earlier recovery steps, and prior attachment and other recovery measures constituted sufficient action to save limitation.

Conclusion: The recovery certificates were not void and the later certificate was not barred by time.

Issue (ii): Whether the petition deserved interference under article 226 in view of delay and the petitioner's conduct.

Analysis: The challenge was raised after a prolonged and unexplained lapse of years, despite earlier recovery steps, attachment, related proceedings, and a prior unsuccessful writ petition. The petitioner's transfer of his share in the property was found collusive in connected proceedings and was viewed as an attempt to defeat recovery. In these circumstances, the equitable jurisdiction under article 226 was not fit to be exercised in favour of the petitioner.

Conclusion: The petitioner was disentitled to relief on the grounds of laches and improper conduct.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the recovery process failed on both merits and equity, leaving the recovery action undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A recovery certificate under section 46(2) is not invalid merely because of a procedural irregularity if the background and subsequent recovery steps show a lawful attempt to realise the assessed dues, and writ relief may be refused where the challenge is stale and the petitioner's conduct is tainted by collusion.

---