Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
Kethmal Parekh vs Tax Recovery Officer And Anr. on 15 November, 1971 cites

Sahu Rajeshwar Nath vs Income-Tax Officer, C-Ward, Meerut And ... on 4 September, 1968

He was of opinion that the decision of the Supreme Court in Sahu Rajeshwar Nath v. Income-tax Officer, C-Ward, Meerut:, furnishes a precedent which is applicable. We find that the learned judge's attention was not invited to the definition of the expression "defaulter " nor was he called upon to test the question from the relevant angle. We think it necessary to approach the question from this point of view. The arrest necessarily postulates the physical presence of the person and the detention in civil prison can be ordered on the Tax Recovery Officer being satisfied about certain omissions or commissions. The acts- or omissions might relate to the affairs or property of the firm or the affairs or the property of the individual partner. The penalty under which a person suffers loss of liberty is in the nature of a punishment inflicted on him for a criminal offence. It results in the deprivation of freedom that constitutes a fundamental right. A constraint on a man's liberty is an extremely drastic step that can be resorted to only on proof of a deliberate or wilful or culpable avoidance of the obligation to pay the tax. This is a measure that can be resorted to only because of certain antecedent acts of commission and/or omission. If the argument of Mr. Rama Rao is accepted it would mean that the law permits the ultimate remedy of arrest to be resorted to against a person to whom the opportunity to avoid the extreme penalty was not given by notice served on him. We think the scheme of the enactment is incompatible with such a cause of action.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Behari Lal Ram Charan Kothi vs Income-Tax Officer, "B" Ward And Anr. on 20 May, 1971

22. The counsel submits that in the present case the position is rendered clearer because of the definition of the word " defaulter " in Rule 1. He has also relied upon the decision in Behari Lal Ram Charan Kothi v. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, B-Ward, Kanpur, . In that case for the recovery of the dues of a company, notice was issued to another concern on the ground that the latter owed monies to the assessee. The garnishee denied the existence of any debt. But the statement of the garnishee was disbelieved by the Tax Recovery Officer who sought to proceed against the garnishee, on the strength of the certificate which named the assessee as the person to whom the procedure was to be applied. Although the garnishee could be deemed to be an "assessee in default" within the meaning of Section 226(3), the Allahabad High Court held that as no recovery certificate was issued naming the garnishee, the proceedings taken by the Tax Recovery Officer were without jurisdiction. It was observed :
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 7 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Kapurchand Shrimal vs Tax Recovery Officer, Hyderabad & Ors on 14 August, 1968

In support of his contention, the standing counsel for the revenue, drew our attention to two decisions in Sahu Rajeshwar Nath v. Income-tax Officer, C-Ward, Meerut, and Kapurchand Shrimal v. Tax Recovery Officer, Hyderabad, In the first of the cases cited, the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with a proceeding arising out of a certificate issued under Section 46(2) of the repealed Act. Ramaswamy J., speaking for the court, observed as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 20 - J C Shah - Full Document

Union Of India vs Satyanarayan Khan And Others. on 22 March, 1960

36. We are of opinion that the construction of the relevant provisions of law advocated by the counsel for revenue cannot be accepted. It is, however, open to the Income-tax Officer to amend the certificate already issued by him naming the individual partner also as a defaulter. We are of opinion that the ruling in Union of India v. Sathyanarayan Khan, [1961] 42 I.T.R. 42 (Cal.) is applicable to a situation like the present one. The Income-tax Officer may amend the certificate previously issued by him enabling the Tax Recovery Officer to take steps now against the petitioner under Schedule 2. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that the notice issued under Rule 73 on August 21, 1971, is ultra vires and has to be quashed.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Raja Pid Naik vs Agricultural Income Tax Officer-Cum ... on 15 September, 1967

21. Mr. Dasaratharama Reddy has relied upon the decision of a Full Bench of the Mysore High Court in Raja Pid Naik v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer-cum-Commercial Tax Officer, [1968] 69 I.T.R. 401 (Mys.) [F.B.]. That was a case under the Hyderabad Agricultural Income-tax Act. The provisions of thafstatute which were construed and applied by the Full Bench of the Mysore High court are in pan materia with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, which are pertinent in the present context. Section 34 of the statute considered by the Mysore High Court enabled the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to forward to the Taluqdar a certificate in cases in which the assessee was in default. The wording of Section 34 is identical in all material respects with the language of Section 222. On receipt of the certificate it was competent for the Taluqdar to recover the amounts specified therein as a public demand. The assessee died during the pendency of the recovery proceedings. But, before his death a notice of demand was served on him. The question was whether the proceedings could be continued against the legal representative and whether the successor-in-interest was an "assessee in default ", within the meaning of Section 34. The successor-in-interest was not served with a notice of demand. The Full Bench of the Mysore High Court held that the proceedings could not be continued against the legal representative although Section 22 of the Act fastened the liability of the deceased assessee on the legal representative. It was observed that a certificate forwarded under Section 34(3) authorises recovery of arrears only from the assessee in default named in the certificate. The result is when the assessee dies, the efficacy of the certificate comes to an end and the recovery proceedings cannot be continued against the successor-in-interest on the strength of the certificate. The only method by which the successor could be proceeded against was on the basis of a fresh certificate naming him as the defaulter. Learned counsel calls in aid the ratio of the decision that the proceedings for recovery of the tax are permissible only against the assessee named in the certificate. It was on the application of this principle that the Full Bench of the Mysore High Court held that the certificate which served as the foundation for the action against the deceased person was no longer operative after the death of the defaulter named in the certificate.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ram Das Jaiswal vs Income-Tax Officer on 2 March, 1970

30. Our : attention was next drawn to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Das Jaiswal v. Income-tax Officer, Varanasi, . In that case a single judge of the Allahabad High Court held that it is not necessary that a further notice should be served upon a partner of the firm in order to render that partner liable for the payment of tax if a notice of demand has been served upon a partnership firm. Pathak J. of the Allahabad High Court held that the liability is a personal one for the enforcement of which " the partner is vulnerable to all the processes of recovery which can be taken as if it was his personal debt. The learned judge accordingly held that the partner is not immune from arrest in proceedings for recovery of the income-tax due by the firm. With respect we are unable to accede to the conclusion of the learned judge.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - R S Pathak - Full Document
1