MAHENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. KHANJAN KUNWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was assessed to agricultural income-tax under the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1948, for the assessment year 1363 Fasli. A notice of demand dated Aug. 28, 1961 was served upon the petitioner on Sept. 29, 1961, calling upon him to pay the sum of Rs. 12,079.12 as tax. Under the terms of the notice of demand, which were in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 30 of the Act, the amount specified in the notice was payable in two equal instalments, the first instalment to be paid within one month of the service of the notice and the second within six months from the due date of the first instalment. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the assessment order, which was filed on Oct. 3, 1961. On the same day the petitioner obtained an order from the appellate authority directing that he should be treated as not being in default for not paying the tax assessed. The appeal was dismissed on Nov. 28, 1961, and with it the order that the petitioner should be treated as not being in default was discharged. Then the petitioner, on Feb. 17, 1962, proceeded in revision before the Revision Board. The revision application was dismissed on Sept. 15, 1962. Thereafter a reference application, under Sec. 24(2) of the Act, was dismissed by the Revision Board. The petitioner then filed a reference application in this Court under Sec. 24 (4), which is pending. Meanwhile, on April 29, 1962 the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 6,039.56 towards the first instalment of tax. On April 16, 1964, as the petitioner had not deposited the balance of tax, the assessing authority imposed a penalty in the sum of Rs. 1,509.89. The total of the amount of lax and penalty, therefore, came to Rs. 7,549.45 and on June 9, 1964, the Collector passed an order directing the recovery of that amount as arrears of land revenue.

(2.) The petitioner objected to the recovery proceedings against him, bur his objections were rejected. He has now filed this petition for certiorari challenging the validity of the recovery proceedings.

(3.) The only contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the recovery proceedings are barred by limitation. There is force in this contention. Sec. 30 of the Act provides :