BEEPATHUMMA T T P Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks appropriate writ directing the respondents to forebear from enforcing Ext P2 notice or effecting sale of the land shown in Ext. P2 notice and to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P2 notice.

(2.) The petitioner is one of the heirs of her father U. N. Muhammad Kunhi who died in 1969. On the return filed by his son T. P. Kuttiali under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (for short the 'Act'), assessment was completed by the second respondent, who is the authority under the Act and Ext. P1 assessment order was issued levying estate duty of Rs. 14,467.00. The duty so levied not having been paid, an attempt was made to recover the sum under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (for short the "R. R Act"). The first respondent, who is the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Arrear collection) Tellicherry, issued Ext. P2 notice under S.49(2) of the R. R. Act stating that if the estate duty together with costs and interest is not paid, the land in T. S. 106 of the Tellicherry Municipality will be sold. The petitioner, claiming to be in occupation of this land, is aggrieved by Ext. P2 notice

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, estate duty can be recovered as arrear of income tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that can be done only by the Tax Recovery Officer notified under that Act and the first respondent has not been so notified and as such he is incompetent to take steps for recovery of the estate duty. This argument has been submitted on the assumption that estate duty is to be recovered under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not under the provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. Alternatively it is submitted that the machinery of the State Government (first respondent is an employee of the State Government) cannot be utilised for the purpose and if at all, the machinery of the Tellicherry Municipality alone can be utilised and in such an event, the concerned officer has no right to attach or bring immovable property to sale and can proceed only to distrain and sell movable assets or to proceed according to the provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that estate duty has to be recovered not in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but in accordance with the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 which contemplated recovery in accordance with the provisions of the R. R. Act. They further contended that even it the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are to be applied, recourse can be had to the provisions of the R. R. Act as has been done in the instant case.