PREM BALLABH KHULBE Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of the District Judge, Kumaun, allowing the application of the Income -tax Officer, praying that the sum of Rs. 12,237 -13 -6 lying in deposit in the Government Treasury in respect of tax demands outstanding against the firm and the partners which far exceed the amount lying in deposit with the court.

(2.) A civil suit for rendition of accounts was filed in the court of the District Judge. A final decree was passed by the District Judge on the 30th November, 1955. Rs. 12,237 -13 -6 were lying in deposit in the court as a result of the sale of certain movable of the firm. It was held that each of the four partners of the firm was entitled to one -fourth share therein subject to the claim of the income -tax department and the sales tax department against the firm. It was further ordered that, inasmuch as the claims of the taxing departments far exceeded the deposit in court, no party to the suit shall be allowed to withdraw any part of the deposit till the claim of the taxing department is either withdrawd. or reduced Thereupon, the Income -tax Officer, A -Ward, Bareilly, by means of two letters, one dated 11th December, 1956, and the other dated 19th February, 1957, applied to the District Judge praying that the sum of Rs. 12,237 -13 -6 lying in deposit in the court be deposited in the Government Treasury towards the payment of income -tax dues against the parties to the suit.

(3.) MR . Jagdish Swarup, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended, firstly, that the provisions of section 46(5A) have no application as the court is not a person to whom the Income -tax Officer can issue a notice under sub -section (5A) of section 46. Secondly, that the provisions of the Explanation to section 46(7) referred to any other law for the time being in force relating to the recovery of debts due to the Government and there was, according to him, no other law in force other than that provided in section 46 and as such a mere application to a court to pay the amount of the assessee lying with it was invalid and, lastly, that the Government had, after the coming into force of the Constitution of India, no priority in respect of its debts and unless the Government obtained a decree the provisions of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code could not come into play.