SUBURBAN BANK LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I make the following order:

(2.) In any event having regard to the fact that since the date of the issue of the notice under Section 18A a regular assessment has taken place on 20-12-1949 and a notice of demand dated 22-12- 1949 for the sum of Rs. 26726/8/- found due on such assessment, has been issued on the Liquida tor the question of compliance with notice under Section 18A dated 14-1-1948 no longer subsists and what is now due and payable is under and because of the assessment dated 20-12-1948 and the notice dated 22-12-1948. In my opinion, there fore, the Income-tax authorities are not entitled to claim the sum of Rs. 11,0177- in preference to the other creditors of the Bank. The Income-tax authorities are entitled to their claims, namely, to the sum of Rs. 18,848-10-0 Rs. 3.933-2-0 and Rs. 26,726-8-0 but they will rank as ordinary creditors.

(3.) I cannot at the same time allow the contention of Liquidator namely, that the assessment in respect of the year 1947-48 for which a demand notice was given under Section 29 on 22-12-1949, should be re-opened by this Court. In the affidavit filed by the Liquidator before me he has not asked for it, nor has any material been produced before me to support his present contention, namely, that the said assessment has not been a proper assessment. It was only at the hearing before me that Mr. Boy, appearing for the Liquidator, contended that the said assessment should be re-opened. I am unable to accept that contention. It must be established by the assessee that the assessment has been an improper one. As I said before, in the affidavit filed by the Liquidator it has neither been alleged that the assessment ought to be reopened nor has any material been given which would justify me in holding that the said assessment should be reopened. In this connection I would refer to the following observation of Cotton L. J. made in the case of --'ex parte Kibble. In re Onslow' (1875) 10 Ch. A 373. (A).