Recovery of tax arrears: Collector may use civil court powers; forwarding a certificate starts limitation, arrest limited by control of family property.

Collector may invoke Code of Civil Procedure powers to recover income tax arrears under the statutory scheme permitting forwarding of a certificate by the Income Tax Officer, and that proviso permitting choice of recovery mode applies uniformly and does not violate equal protection. Forwarding the certificate by the Income Tax Officer triggers commencement of recovery proceedings for limitation purposes. The Income Tax Officer's decision to treat an appellant as not in default is discretionary, not mandatory. A non karta ordinary member of a joint Hindu family who lacks charge or control of family property cannot be validly arrested and detained under the Collector's CPC recovery powers.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Collector has jurisdiction under section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act to recover tax arrears by exercising powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, including arrest and detention; (ii) Whether the proviso to section 46(2) offends article 14 by permitting alternative procedures at the Collector's discretion; (iii) Whether assessments and recovery proceedings are barred by limitation under section 46(7); (iv) Whether an assessee who has filed appeals must be treated as not in default as a matter of law; (v) Whether a non-karta member of an undivided Hindu family (who has no charge or control of joint family property) can be arrested and detained for recovery of family income-tax arrears.

Issue (i): Whether the Collector has jurisdiction under section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act to recover arrears by exercising Code of Civil Procedure powers, including arrest and detention.

Analysis: Section 46(2) authorises forwarding of a certificate by the Income Tax Officer and directs the Collector to proceed to recover the amount as if it were an arrear of land revenue; the proviso expressly grants the Collector powers which a civil court has for recovery of an amount due under a decree. The statutory language permits the Collector to use CPC powers independently of proceedings under the Public Demands Recovery Act. The law enacted by section 46(2) applies uniformly to all assessees.

Conclusion: Collector has jurisdiction under section 46(2) to proceed to recover arrears by employing the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, including arrest and detention, subject to other legal limits.

Issue (ii): Whether the proviso to section 46(2) is void under article 14 because it permits the Collector to choose between alternative recovery procedures.

Analysis: The proviso prescribes the same legal regime for all assessees and merely provides alternative modes of recovery to be applied at the Collector's discretion. Precedent establishes that legislation laying down a law for a class and permitting an administrative authority to select cases within that class for a particular procedure does not automatically violate article 14 where the law applies equally to all and the selection is within a defined policy frame.

Conclusion: The proviso to section 46(2) does not violate article 14 and is not ultra vires.

Issue (iii): Whether proceedings under section 46(2) are barred by the one-year limitation in section 46(7).

Analysis: Section 46(7) contains an explanation that a proceeding shall be deemed to have commenced if some action is taken to recover the sum within the period. Forwarding of the certificate by the Income Tax Officer constitutes such action by the revenue, and therefore the recovery proceeding is deemed to have commenced at that time for limitation purposes.

Conclusion: Proceedings are not barred by limitation where the Income Tax Officer forwarded the certificate within the period specified by section 46(7).

Issue (iv): Whether the filing of appeals requires the Income Tax Officer as a matter of law to treat the assessee as not in default.

Analysis: Section 45 confers discretion on the Income Tax Officer to treat an assessee as not in default while an appeal under section 30 is pending. The statutory term "may" coupled with "in his discretion" indicates a discretionary, not mandatory, obligation; appellate status may inform the exercise of discretion but does not compel a non-default finding as a matter of law.

Conclusion: The Income Tax Officer is not obliged as a matter of law to treat an assessee as not in default merely because an appeal is pending; the determination is discretionary.

Issue (v): Whether a non-karta ordinary member of a joint Hindu family who has no charge or control of joint family property can be arrested and detained for recovery of family income-tax arrears.

Analysis: Liability for family debts extends to joint family property and those in charge or control of joint family property may be subject to measures for recovery. A mere ordinary member without management, charge, or control of joint family property is not shown to have assets liable for the debt; the statutory prerequisites for arrest and detention under the civil recovery powers (clauses referenced in proviso to CPC section 51 procedures) are not established as regards such a member.

Conclusion: A non-karta ordinary member who is not in charge or control of any part of the joint family property cannot be subjected to arrest and detention under the Collector's CPC recovery powers; proceedings against such a member must be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The Collector is competent to proceed under section 46(2) using CPC powers and the proviso is constitutionally valid; limitation is satisfied by forwarding the certificate; the Income Tax Officer's treatment of an appellant's default status is discretionary; accordingly, proceedings against a karta or responsible member may continue, while proceedings against an ordinary member lacking charge or control over joint family property must be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a uniform law for a class and authorises an administrative authority to select the mode of enforcement, such discretion does not amount to denial of equal protection if the law applies equally to all; forwarding of an income-tax certificate by the Income Tax Officer constitutes commencement of recovery proceedings for limitation purposes; the Income Tax Officer's decision whether an appellant is in default is discretionary; an ordinary member of a joint Hindu family without management or control of joint family property is not liable to arrest for recovery of family tax arrears.

---