Concluded determination on proprietorship and forgery cannot be reopened on bare denial; recovery proceedings were upheld.

A concluded determination identifying the petitioner as proprietor of the concern could not be reopened in writ proceedings on a bare denial of proprietorship or an unproven plea of forgery. The High Court noted consistent documentary material, including statutory returns and information obtained from the Income-tax Department, which supported the authorities' case. As the petitioner failed to substantiate the allegation of forgery or show the enquiry was conducted in the manner alleged, the recovery proceedings against the property standing in his name were upheld and the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could avoid recovery proceedings by disputing that he was the proprietor of the concern and by alleging forgery in the documents relied upon by the authorities.

Analysis: The challenge was rejected because the earlier determination had already attained finality. The record contained multiple documents showing the petitioner as the proprietor of the concern, including statutory returns and information obtained from the Income-tax Department. The petitioner also failed to establish participation in the enquiry in the manner alleged or to substantiate the plea of forgery. The question raised was treated as one resting on factual material already concluded against the petitioner.

Conclusion: The petitioner's denial of proprietorship and the plea of forgery were not accepted, and the recovery proceedings against the property standing in his name were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, leaving the impugned recovery action undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A concluded determination supported by consistent documentary material cannot be reopened in writ proceedings on a bare denial of proprietorship or an unproven plea of forgery.

---