Final assessment and belated recall petition cannot stall recovery proceedings once statutory remedies were not pursued.

Sale notices issued for recovery were not shown to be vulnerable merely because a recall petition against an earlier withdrawal order was said to be pending. The assessment had attained finality after the earlier writ petition was withdrawn, the statutory VAT remedy was not pursued, and the recall request was filed belatedly without a convincing explanation or supporting record. On that basis, the revenue was entitled to continue recovery proceedings, including attachment and sale, and writ jurisdiction was not treated as a means to defeat enforcement at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether sale notices issued for recovery could be interfered with on the ground that a recall petition seeking recall of the earlier withdrawal order was pending.

Analysis: The assessment order had attained finality after the earlier writ petition challenging it was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner did not avail the statutory remedy under the VAT regime and sought to stall recovery proceedings on the basis of a recall petition filed after substantial delay, for which no convincing explanation or supporting record was shown. Once the assessment and consequential penalty proceedings had become final, the authorities were entitled to proceed under the revenue recovery mechanism, including attachment and sale. The writ jurisdiction was not found fit to be invoked to defeat recovery at that stage.

Conclusion: The challenge to the sale notices failed and the relief was declined; the issue was decided against the petitioner and in favour of the revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery proceedings based on a final assessment cannot be interdicted in writ jurisdiction merely because an unnumbered and belated recall petition is asserted to be pending, particularly where the petitioner has slept over its rights and the statutory remedy was not pursued.

---