HIRALAL Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners before us pray for an appropriate writ or direction quashing the proceedings for recovery of arrears of tax and penalty pending before the Collector and the Tehsildar of Bhilwara and preventing the respondents from collecting the tax in question.

(2.) THE relevant facts on which the application is founded are these. THE petitioners are members of a joint Hindu family firm carrying on business at Bhilwara. On 28th January, 1958, the Income-tax Officer concerned made an ex parte best judgment assessment against the petitioners under section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) for the assessment year 1956-57. THE tax assessed was to the tune of Rs. 1,96,015.03 nP., in addition to a penalty of Rs. 9,800 imposed under section 46(1) of the Act. Notices of demand under section 29 of the Act were issued in respect of the above amounts. Since the petitioners firm was unable to pay the amount, the Income-tax Officer concerned forwarded to the Collector, Bhilwara, a certificate for recovery of the amount due from the petitioners. THE Collector, Bhilwara, then initiated proceedings for recovery of the dues and transferred the case to the Tehsildar of Bhilwara for appropriate action in order to realise the amount. THE said Tehsildar issued notice under section 229 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (15 of 1956) on 10th August, 1959. This was followed by another notice of demand dated 27th November, 1959, in which the Tehsildar, Bhilwara, again pressed for payment of the amount in arrear along with certain costs within fifteen days from the date of the notice. In the meanwhile the petitioners firm preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer, after an application under section 27 of the Act requesting the Income-tax Officer to cancel the ex parte assessment had failed. THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 10th April, 1959, partially accepted the appeal of the petitioners and reduced the amount of tax levied to a sum of Rs. 91,132 only. THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, refused to interfere with the order of penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer. THE total demand thus, as a result of the appellate order, was reduced to Rs. 1,00,932 only. Against these orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the petitioners state that appeals are pending before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. According to the case of the petitioners although the amount of assessment was reduced, no fresh notice of demand was served under section 29 of the Income-tax Act and the proceedings before the Collector or the Tehsildar continued uninterrupted. It appears, however, that the Collector was in due course informed by the Income-tax Officer about the reduction in the amount of the tax assessed, as a result of the appellate order; and the Collector was requested to recover the amount of Rs. 1,00,932 only which had been so reduced and was the outstanding demand payable by the petitioners modifying the original certificate. THE Tehsildar, Bhilwara, before whom the proceedings for recovery of the demand were pending, then sent a fresh notice on 14th January, 1960, to the petitioners asking them to pay the above sum of Rs. 1,00,932.

(3.) THE various clauses appear to make a distinction between the recovery of revenue as such and recovery of any demand as an arrear of revenue. Section 259 of this Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil courts. No suit or proceeding shall, unless otherwise excepted by any express provision made in this Act or in any other enactment or law for the time being in force, lie or be instituted in any civil court with respect to any matter arising under, and provided for by the said Act. It is obvious, therefore, that on its own terms the bar under the above section will not apply where some other law for the time being in force provides for institution of civil suits, though in other respects the procedure laid down in the Land Revenue Act may be attracted by virtue of the provisions of that particular law. On the strength of section 256, it is clear that all sums declared to be public demands whether under the Public Demands Recovery Act or any other enactment for the time being in force, or recoverable in law as "an arrear of revenue" can be realised in accordance with the procedure laid down under Chapter X of the Land Revenue Act.