https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288501 A recovery proviso under section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act was held not to violate article 14 because it applied uniformly and only authorised choice among recovery modes. Assessments were not invalid merely because the Finance Acts were extended to the excluded area after the period began, as tax liability arose under section 3 and the operative law was in force when assessment was made. Recovery was also not time-barred under section 46(7), since limitation ran from forwarding of the certificate. The Collector could proceed under the Code of Civil Procedure independently of the Public Demands Recovery Act, but arrest and detention could not be ordered against a mere HUF member without proof of charge or control over recoverable property. en-us Thu, 26 May 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:21:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288501 A recovery proviso under section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act was held not to violate article 14 because it applied uniformly and only authorised choice among recovery modes. Assessments were not invalid merely because the Finance Acts were extended to the excluded area after the period began, as tax liability arose under section 3 and the operative law was in force when assessment was made. Recovery was also not time-barred under section 46(7), since limitation ran from forwarding of the certificate. The Collector could proceed under the Code of Civil Procedure independently of the Public Demands Recovery Act, but arrest and detention could not be ordered against a mere HUF member without proof of charge or control over recoverable property. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 26 May 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288501