GORA CHAND POREL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, 8th Court, Alipore, dismissing the plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Alipore.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted a suit for a declaration that the proceedings and orders in relation to or arising out of Certificate Case No. 5168 Income-tax of 1956-57 pending before the Certificate Officer and Additional District Magistrate of 24-Parganas were illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction and not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction.

(3.) The plaintiff's case as made out in the plaint is that he is the karta of a Hindu undivided family. The Income-tax Officer, District-VI, Calcutta, assessed the income-tax of the family for the year 1955-56 by a notice dated February 25, 1956, under Section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and directed payment of Rs. 15,595-7-0 as tax. Against the said assessment, an appeal was preferred. A sum of Rs. 5,940-11-0 was paid as tax on March 29, 1956, and subsequently other amounts were also realised. On or about March 21, 1957, the Income-tax Officer forwarded a certificate under Section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act to the Certificate Officer of 24-Parganas for recovery of the balance of Rs. 9,634-12-0. The Certificate Officer thereupon signed a certificate under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act of 1913 for the recovery of the said amount. While the certificate case was being proceeded with, the original assessment was reduced in appeal by a sum of Rs. 4,521 by an appellate order dated September 19, 1957. On November 11, 1957, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice of demand under Section 29 of the Act directing payment of Rs. 6,839.91. In spite of the reduction of the amount, the authorities concerned proceeded with the previous certificate case which is not in accordance with law. As a fresh notice was issued under Section 29 of the Act, there could not have been any default before the expiry of the period of notice for the purpose of Sections 45 and 46 of the Act and the old certificate case was thus illegal and invalid.