INCOME-TAX OFFICER ALLEPPEY Vs. M C PONNOOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Appeal No. 139 is from the decision in O. P. No. 317 of 1963 and Writ appeal No. 140 is from the decision in O. P No. 712 of 1963. The Income-tax officer, Alleppey, the third respondent in both the original petitions, is the appellant before us.

(2.) THE Income-tax Act, 1961, came into force on 1-4-1962 Section 2 (44) of that act defined the expression "tax Recovery Officer" as follows: "tax Recovery Officer" means (i) A Collector; (ii) an additional Collector or any other officer authorised to exercise the powers of a Collector under any law relating to land revenue for the time being in force in a State; or (iii) any gazetted officer of the Central or a State Government who may he authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to exercise the powers of a tax Recovery Officer".

(3.) SECTION 4 of the Finance Act, 1963, substituted a new definition for the definition extracted above and directed that the new definition "shall be and shall be deemed always to have been substituted" Under the new definition the State government, for the first time, obtained the power to make a State officer a Tax recovery Officer by authorising him to exercise the powers of a Tax Recovery officer. The new definition reads as follows: