Tax recovery notices with an incorrect provision can remain valid where recovery authority exists and objections must follow prescribed procedure.

Recovery proceedings against legal representatives were treated as valid where the authority to recover tax dues existed, even though the notices cited an incorrect provision and part of the demand arose under earlier enactments. The Court noted that recovery notices were only preliminary steps and that the statutory scheme permitted use of the corresponding recovery machinery, including procedures traceable to the Travancore enactment where applicable. The attachment was also not void merely because some demand certificates were issued after the assessee's death or because title and other factual objections were raised; those objections had to be pursued through the prescribed objection procedure in the recovery process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether recovery proceedings initiated against the legal representatives by attachment under the 1961 Act were without jurisdiction because some demands arose under the Travancore Act and the 1922 Act and because the notices cited an incorrect provision; (ii) whether the attachment was vitiated because several certificates were issued after the assessee's death and because the appellants raised title and procedural objections.

Issue (i): Whether recovery proceedings initiated against the legal representatives by attachment under the 1961 Act were without jurisdiction because some demands arose under the Travancore Act and the 1922 Act and because the notices cited an incorrect provision.

Analysis: The recovery notices were only preliminary steps in attachment proceedings, and the existence of jurisdiction depended on whether the officer had power to proceed, not on whether the correct provision was cited in the notice. The statutory scheme under the Finance Act, 1950, the General Clauses Act, 1897, and the Income-tax Act, 1961, enabled recovery through the corresponding recovery authority. The Court also accepted that the procedure available under the Travancore enactment could be utilised to the extent possible for realising dues from the deceased's assets.

Conclusion: The proceedings were not without jurisdiction merely because the notice referred to a particular provision and because part of the demand related to earlier enactments.

Issue (ii): Whether the attachment was vitiated because several certificates were issued after the assessee's death and because the appellants raised title and procedural objections.

Analysis: The fact that some certificates were held invalid did not destroy the recovery officer's jurisdiction to proceed with attachment, particularly when no sale or coercive step against the person had been taken. The appropriate course was to raise objections under the statutory objection procedure in the Second Schedule, and factual objections regarding authority or title could be pursued before the recovery authority. The lumping together of legally recoverable and disputed demands did not render the entire attachment void at that stage.

Conclusion: The attachment was not wholly vitiated, and the appellants' objections were to be pursued in the prescribed recovery proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the recovery proceedings were upheld subject to the statutory objection mechanism available to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the authority to recover tax dues exists, an incorrect statutory reference in the recovery notice does not invalidate the proceedings, and partial defects in some demand certificates do not by themselves oust jurisdiction to continue attachment subject to objections under the prescribed recovery procedure.

---