Patently defective recovery notices were quashed after the authority issued a corrected notice curing the statutory and demand errors.

Recovery notices that cited the wrong enactment, misstated the assessment period, and gave incorrect demand particulars were unsustainable. The court treated these as patent defects in the statutory basis and quantification of the demand, especially because a corrected notice had already been issued identifying the proper enactments, assessment period, and breakup of tax, surcharge, interest, and penalty. On that basis, the impugned notices were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the recovery notices were liable to be quashed for containing patent errors in the governing enactment, assessment period and demand particulars.

Analysis: The notices under challenge referred to the wrong enactment, misstated the assessment period and carried incorrect demand particulars. A corrected notice had meanwhile been issued setting out the proper enactments, period of assessment and break-up of tax, surcharge, interest and penalty. In view of the admitted factual errors in the impugned notices and the subsequent correction, the notices could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The impugned recovery notices were quashed and the writ petitions were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A recovery or demand notice containing obvious factual mistakes in the statutory basis and demand particulars is liable to be set aside when the authority itself issues a corrected notice curing those defects.

---