Unlawful tax detention under preserved State law cannot stand where arrest is not authorised and liberty is at stake.

Section 13(1) of the Finance Act, 1950 was treated as preserving the pre-existing Travancore income-tax law for levy, assessment and recovery for the relevant period, and "collection" was read broadly to cover the recovery process. Because the Travancore law did not authorise arrest and detention in civil prison for income-tax recovery, a composite custody order based on such tax was held unsustainable. The Court also stated that res judicata did not apply because the earlier matter concerned a different statutory context, and that an alternative remedy or a technical objection to who filed the petition did not bar habeas-type relief where personal liberty was allegedly restrained without authority of law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether arrest and detention in civil prison could be sustained for recovery of tax assessed under the Travancore Income-tax Act in the context of section 13(1) of the Finance Act, 1950; (ii) whether the plea of res judicata barred the writ petition; (iii) whether the existence of an alternative remedy before the Revenue Board barred relief under article 226; (iv) whether the petition was incompetent because it was filed by the detainee's wife.

Issue (i): whether arrest and detention in civil prison could be sustained for recovery of tax assessed under the Travancore Income-tax Act in the context of section 13(1) of the Finance Act, 1950.

Analysis: The saving under section 13(1) of the Finance Act, 1950 preserved the pre-existing State law for levy, assessment and collection of taxes relating to periods governed by that law. The expression "collection" was treated as comprehensive enough to include the entire recovery process. As the Travancore law did not authorise arrest and detention for recovery of income-tax, and the impugned custody was founded on a composite demand including taxes assessed under that law, the detention could not be sustained by reference to the Indian Income-tax Act alone.

Conclusion: The arrest and detention were without authority of law so far as they related to tax assessed under the Travancore Income-tax Act, and the detention was unsustainable in toto.

Issue (ii): whether the plea of res judicata barred the writ petition.

Analysis: The earlier decision relied on by the revenue concerned execution of a certificate under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, after commencement of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It did not decide the specific question whether arrest and detention were available for taxes assessed under the Travancore Income-tax Act. The later arrest order was also made independently by a different officer.

Conclusion: The plea of res judicata failed.

Issue (iii): whether the existence of an alternative remedy before the Revenue Board barred relief under article 226.

Analysis: The Court held that where personal liberty is alleged to have been curtailed without authority of law, the existence of a pending alternative remedy does not necessarily prevent immediate constitutional relief. Habeas corpus is meant to secure prompt judicial review of unlawful detention.

Conclusion: The alternative remedy objection was overruled.

Issue (iv): whether the petition was incompetent because it was filed by the detainee's wife.

Analysis: The affidavits showed that the petition was filed at the detainee's instance while he was under detention and unable to instruct counsel freely. A technical objection of form was not permitted to defeat a challenge to alleged unlawful deprivation of liberty.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ was allowed, the impugned detention was declared illegal, and the detainee was directed to be released forthwith, while leaving open lawful steps for recovery of taxes assessable under the Indian Income-tax Act for later years.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a pre-existing State income-tax law continues to govern assessment and recovery for the relevant period, and that law does not authorise arrest and detention, a composite custody order including such unrecoverable tax is invalid as a whole; constitutional relief will not be denied on technical objections where personal liberty is unlawfully restrained.

---