Revenue recovery against legal representatives requires proper notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC before coercive recovery steps

Revenue recovery against the legal representatives of a deceased defaulter may proceed where the statute authorises use of civil procedure powers and a valid recovery certificate exists, but the safeguard of notice to legal representatives under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC must be observed before coercive steps are taken. The Court distinguished the substantive question of liability from the procedural question of notice, and, while noting that the notice was not properly issued in the prescribed form, it preserved the safeguard by treating the impugned notice as a valid Rule 22 notice and allowing objections before recovery action.

---

---

Issues: Whether revenue recovery proceedings could be taken against the widow and other legal representatives of a deceased defaulter without first issuing a notice under the civil procedure framework, and whether the impugned revenue recovery notice could be sustained by treating it as a notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The notice was issued after the original assessee had died, and the Court examined the interaction between the liability of representatives of a deceased person under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 and the machinery for recovery under the Revenue Recovery Act. The Court distinguished between the question whether the widow was in fact liable as a legal representative and the narrower question whether recovery could proceed mechanically under the impugned notice. It accepted that, where a valid certificate for recovery existed against the deceased defaulter, the Collector could invoke the civil procedure powers made available by the statute and proceed against legal representatives in the manner contemplated by Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. At the same time, the Court held that the mandatory notice contemplated by that rule had not been properly given in form, although the substance of the safeguard could still be preserved by treating the impugned notice as such a notice and by allowing objections before coercive recovery steps were taken.

Conclusion: The impugned notice was not quashed outright; it was directed to be treated as a notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the assessee's legal representative was granted an opportunity to raise objections before any recovery action.

---