MANICKAM CHETTIAR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .

(2.) MR. Balasubramania Aiyar raised two questions before me, in support of this revision petition. On one of them I feel little doubt, but the other point is one of some importance and, notwithstanding the reliance placed on behalf of the Government on the decisions in Deputy Commissioner of Police v. Vedantam and Soneram Rameshur v. Mary Pinto. I think that it should be considered by a Division Bench or even by a Full Bench if the Chief Justice so directs.

(3.) LEACH, C.J. - The petitioner obtained a money decree against one Govinda Rao and in execution thereof attached certain moveable properties belonging to the judgment debtor and brought them to sale. Govinda Rao under an order of assessment dated the 28th August 1934 was required to pay a sum of Rs. 301-13-0 by way of income-tax. He did not comply with the notice of demand for payment and on the 12th November 1934 a penalty of Rs. 10 was imposed by the Income-tax Officer because of the default, thus increasing the total amount due by the assessee to Rs. 311-13.0. Before the sale the Income-tax Officer filed an application in court asking for an order directing the payment out to him from the sale proceeds when the sale took place of the amount due to government by Govinda Rao. The sale in execution was in due to government by Govinda Rao. The sale in execution was in due course carried out but only realised Rs. 227-9-0. After reserving the amount required for the costs of execution the District. Munsif ordered the balance to be paid out to the Income-tax Officer. The question which we are called upon to decided is whether the court had power to order the payment out of moneys due to government on mere application.