Tax recovery beyond limitation was unauthorised, and consequential refund was maintainable in writ jurisdiction.

Tax recovery proceedings under section 46 were held time-barred because the record did not show lawful commencement within the statutory period or proof of receipt of the recovery certificate or requisition by the relevant officers. The burden to establish compliance with limitation and valid recovery action was not discharged, so the collection was without authority of law. Refund relief was also maintained in writ jurisdiction because, once the recovery itself was found illegal, repayment became consequential relief under article 226 rather than a separate claim requiring a civil suit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tax recovery proceedings were barred by limitation and otherwise unauthorised under section 46 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922; (ii) Whether, after holding the recovery illegal, the assessee could be granted refund relief in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the tax recovery proceedings were barred by limitation and otherwise unauthorised under section 46 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: Section 46(2) permits recovery through a certificate to the Collector, section 46(5) authorises requisitions to deduct salary income, and section 46(7) bars commencement of recovery proceedings after one year from the last day of the year in which demand is made. The record did not establish receipt of any recovery certificate or requisition by the Collector, Tehsildar, or Treasury Officer, and the respondent also failed to prove that proceedings had commenced within the statutory period. The burden to show compliance with the limitation period and lawful commencement of recovery was not discharged.

Conclusion: The recovery proceedings were barred by section 46(7) and were unauthorised in law, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether, after holding the recovery illegal, the assessee could be granted refund relief in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: A writ petition solely for refund may ordinarily be declined where an adequate civil remedy exists, but that rule does not apply where the court itself finds the recovery to be without authority of law. In such a case, refund is a consequential relief flowing from the declaration that the recovery was illegal, and the constitutional power under article 226 extends to ordering repayment of money realised without legal authority.

Conclusion: Refund relief was maintainable and was rightly granted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the recovery orders were quashed, and consequential refund was directed on the footing that the tax had been recovered without authority of law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where tax recovery proceedings are commenced beyond the statutory limitation period or without lawful commencement, the resulting collection is without authority of law and refund can be granted as consequential relief in writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

---