UNION OF INDIA Vs. SATYANARAYAN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit was contested by the union of India in the trial court. THE defence which is material for the purpose of the present appeal was that the certificates mentioned in the plaint were valid and binding upon the plaintiff and so the attachment of plaintiffs moveables which followed the execution of the certificates is valid. Some other issues of a rather technical nature were also raised in the court below at the instance of the contesting defendant. But they were not pressed on behalf of the appellant in this appeal. Upon the evidence adduced on behalf of both parties the court below made a declaration that the certificates in question were invalid and inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff and the attachment of the properties of the plaintiff was also declared to be void. This appeal was preferred by the Union of India from the above judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

(2.) THE facts which have given rise to the present appeal are more or less admitted. THEre was firm of the name and style of Messers. "Satyanarayan Khan-Kalicharan Sadhukhan" which carried on business in various kinds of oil. This was a partnership firm of which the component members were plaintiff Satyanarayan Khan, Kalicharan Sadhukhan and Bepin Behari Tat. THE firm was as unregistered one. By the income-tax authorities this firm was assessed for the years 1943-44, 1944-45 and 1945-46. THE amount of taxes payable for the assessment of the above income-tax years were respectively (1) Rs. 1,091-2-0, (2) Rs. 59,972 and (3) Rs. 71,930-8-0. THEse amounts were not paid by the firm although notice of demand under section 29 of the Income-tax Act was served on the assessee firm. THEreupon, action was taken by the Income-tax Officer under section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act, who certified that the taxes mentioned above were not paid. On receipt of this certificate the Certificate Officer of Alipore filed three certificates under section 4 of the Public Demands Recovery Act. THEse cases were Certificate Cases Nos. 1115 I.T. of 1948-49, 1130 I.T. of 1948-49 and 366 I.T. of 1948-49. Notices were issued under section 7 of the Public Demands Recovery Act and served upon the firm. THE taxes were not paid. THEre upon some movable properties belonging to the plaintiff-partner were attached. THE plaintiff raised on objection before the certificate Officer which was dismissed and an appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the Collector of 24 Paraganas on 18th July, 1950. THEreupon, the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 16th December, 1950, for the reliefs which we have already mentioned.

(3.) THE second passage runs to the following effect :