K BURMAN Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent, one of the Commercial Tax Officers of Calcutta, West Bengal, made an order of assement against the petitioner under S.11(2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, on the 24th of September 1957 under which he determined the taxable turnover of the petitioner for the two years from 1-1-1955 to 31-12-1956 at Rs.4,00,000 and tax payable thereon at Rs.18,750. He also imposed a penalty under S.11(2) of the Act for non-registration on the petitioner in the sum of Rs.2,500. Pursuant thereto he issued a notice of demand to the petitioner in Form No.VII prescribed under the said Bengal Act. As the petitioner did not pay the demand, the first respondent issued a certificate for collection thereof under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 to the second respondent the Collector of 24 Parganas, West Bengal. The second respondent in his turn issued a certificate under S. 3 of the Revenue Recovery Act, Central Act I of 1890, to the third respondent the Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore Urban District, as the petitioner was reported to have a place of business as well as properties within the district of Bangalore. When the Deputy Commissioner took steps for recovery under the Mysore Land Revenue Code then in force (since replaced by the Mysore Land Revenue Act of 1964) through his subordinate the Special Tahsildar for Recovery the 5th respondent, the petitioner raised various objections. The Deputy Commissioner overruled them and appeals by the petitioner presented to the Divisional Commissioner the 6th respondent and the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal the 7th respondent were not successful. The petitioner thereupon filed WP.No.315 of 1963 which was dismissed on the 10th of Semptember 1965 for the reason that the Authorities of West Bengal had not been impleaded as parties. Thereafter the petitioner filed this writ petition on the 20th of September 1965, in which he prays for the quashing of not only the certificate for recovery issued by the Collector of 24 Paraganas and the orders in respect thereof of the Deputy Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner and Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, but also of the original order of assessment made by the first respondent.

(2.) Although the matter has been argued at length and various aspects of the controversy discussed in detail, the principal matters for consideration in this writ petition are, (1) Whether the certificate issued by the Collector of 24 Parganas is a valid and enforceable certificate under the law, and (2) Whether the petitioner can, in these recovery proceedings, question the validity or correctness of the order of assessment itself.

(3.) The disposal of the first question depends upon a consideration of the relevant legal provisions governing the issue and enforcement of certificates of the nature impugned in this case.