Coercive tax recovery requires the named assessee in the certificate; an unnamed partner cannot be arrested by implication.

Under the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, coercive recovery begins only from the recovery certificate, which fixes the Tax Recovery Officer's jurisdiction and identifies the defaulter named in it. Actual statutory notice to that named assessee is a mandatory condition precedent before arrest or detention under rule 73 can be invoked. Liability cannot be extended by implication, constructive notice, or the mere fact of partnership where the certificate names only the firm and not the individual partner. On that footing, proceedings and arrest against an unnamed partner are without jurisdiction and the notice is liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a partner can be proceeded against and arrested under the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, when the recovery certificate names only the firm as the assessee and not the individual partner.

Analysis: The scheme of recovery under section 222 and the Second Schedule makes the recovery certificate the foundation of the Tax Recovery Officer's jurisdiction. Rule 1 confines the expression "defaulter" to the assessee named in the certificate, while rule 2 requires actual notice to that defaulter before coercive recovery can begin. Rule 73, which authorises arrest and detention, presupposes prior notice to the same defaulter and satisfaction of the statutory conditions on his own acts or omissions. The certificate and the notice are therefore not mere formalities but mandatory conditions precedent. The Court rejected the argument that the partner's liability could be constructively inferred from the firm's liability or from the partnership relationship alone. It held that in a taxing statute clear words are required, and nothing can be read in by implication to extend coercive recovery against a person not expressly named in the certificate.

Conclusion: A partner cannot be arrested or proceeded against under rule 73 on the strength of a certificate naming only the firm; the notice issued in such circumstances is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, coercive recovery, including arrest and detention in civil prison, can be taken only against the assessee expressly named in the recovery certificate after actual statutory notice, and liability cannot be extended by implication or constructive notice to a person not so named.

---