Revenue recovery needs a valid statutory certificate; an irregular request cannot confer jurisdiction on the Collector.

The Collector could lawfully commence revenue recovery only on receipt of a valid statutory certificate issued by a competent authority in the manner required by the governing recovery law. A request routed to another Income Tax Officer did not satisfy that scheme, so the defect was jurisdictional and not a mere procedural irregularity. The Court therefore quashed the recovery proceedings and prohibited further action on the impugned certificate. It declined to interfere with the underlying pre-Constitution assessment and left that order untouched.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the Collector on the basis of the certificate furnished in the case were valid and within jurisdiction.

Analysis: The challenge to the assessment itself was not entertained, as the Court declined to express any opinion on the assessment made before the Constitution and held that it could not quash that order in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The matter decided was the legality of the recovery proceedings. Under section 46(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, recovery could be pursued through a proper certificate issued to the Collector, and under the Indian Revenue Recovery Act the Collector could act only upon receipt of a valid certificate sent by a competent authority in the prescribed manner. The certificate relied upon here was not one issued through the statutory channel contemplated by the Revenue Recovery Act. Instead, the amount was sought to be collected on a request made to another Income Tax Officer, which the statutory scheme did not permit. Since the Collector's jurisdiction arose only upon receipt of a valid certificate under the Act, the defect was not a mere procedural irregularity but a jurisdictional one.

Conclusion: The recovery proceedings were without jurisdiction and were liable to be quashed; further steps on the basis of the impugned certificate were prohibited.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent of invalidating the coercive recovery action, while the assessment order itself was left untouched.

Ratio Decidendi: A Collector can initiate revenue recovery proceedings only on receipt of a valid statutory certificate issued by a competent authority in the manner required by the governing recovery law; absence of such a certificate goes to jurisdiction and vitiates the proceedings.

---