Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.27 seconds)Section 226 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Section 226 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 46 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 58 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
K.R.M.T.T. Thyagaraja Chettiar vs The Collector Of Madura on 23 October, 1935
19. It cannot also be disputed that in ordering the arrest of the applicant for failure to pay the income-tax, the Collector was doing an act "in the collection of revenue." The question for consideration, therefore, is whether this act was done "according to the law for the time being in force" within the true meaning to be given to these words in the light of the facts of this case and decided cases and whether consequently the jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with the present application is ousted? The Advocate General has relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Thyagaraja v. Collector, Madura . In that case notices of demand calling upon the applicant to pay the income-tax for the years 1931-32, 1932-33 and 1933-34 were issued on 31st January 1932, 31st January 1933 and 16th November 1933, respectively. Thereafter proceedings were commenced under Section 46, Income-tax Act, and in March 1935 the Revenue Divisional Officer issued an order for the arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 26th March 1935, but was released subsequently on giving some post dated cheques. The petitioner then learnt that proceedings for arresting him were being taken again, He, therefore, made an application to the High Court for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings before the Collector for the realisation of the arrears of income-tax due from him on the ground that these had not been commenced before the expiration of one year from the last dates of the financial years in which the demands had been made, as required by Section 46(7), Income-tax Act, and also that these proceedings were in contravention of the provisions of Section 48, Revenue Recovery Act. It was held in that case that as the orders for the arrest of the petitioner had been issued in pursuance of Section 46, Income-tax Act, it did not matter whether those orders were justified on a right construction of the provisions of that section, that what mattered was whether the Collector bona fide believed that he was acting according to these provisions, and that as it had been conceded that the Collector had not acted mala fide, the Court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings before the Collector.
Section 278 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
Province Of Bombay vs Hormusji Manekji on 12 July, 1947
In Province of Bombay v. Hormusji Manekji, 60 Bom. L. R. 524 : (A. I. R. (34) 1947 P. C. 200), it has been stated (p. 528):
The Governor General In Council vs Shiromani Sugar Mills Limited (In ... on 11 March, 1946
In Governor General v. Shiromani Sugar Mills , a notice of demand in respect of income-tax due from a company was served upon the official liquidators after the company had gone into liquidation. The official liquidators pointed out to the Income-tax Department that the proper procedure was to lodge a claim in respect of arrears of tax alleged to be due from the company. Instead of adopting that procedure the Income-tax Department decided to take action under Section 46, Income-tax Act and a certificate asking the Collector to recover the amount as an arrear of land revenue was sent to the Collector of Allahabad under Sub-section (2) of this section. An application was then made by the Liquidators to the High Court praying that the Income-tax Officer should be directed to put in a formal claim to the official liquidators in respect of the amount of income-tax and for an order restraining the Collector from recovering the amount as an arrear of land revenue. It was contended before the High Court that it had no jurisdiction to interfere by injunction or otherwise in view of Section 226, Government of India Act. The Allahabad High Court did not accept this view, and ordered that the proceedings before the Collector should not be proceeded with without leave of the Court. In appeal the Federal Court set aside the High Court's order, and held that Section 226 deprived the High Court of its jurisdiction in the matter. Spens C. J. in his judgment at pp. 491-492 observed as follows: