Law: Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913

Section: 9,13

(a) Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913,   Ss. 9 & 13 Demand relating to amount of income-tax---Certificate-debtor denying liability and filing objections with Certificate Officer-Sale of assessee-certificate-debtor's property without disposing of such objections, held, to be without lawful authority Provisions of S. 13 mandatory-Denial of liability by certificate-debtor not affected by a prayer for adjustment of demand-Word "shall" in S.13 does not mean "may"-Certificate-debtor's omission to verify objections only a formal defect-Sale being void, bona fide auction purchaser not protected---Sale held on account of four certificates "consolidated together" has no sanction in Act.   Held, that a sale of property belonging to the assessee, certificate-debtor, without disposing of objections filed by him under section 9, Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, is a sale without lawful authority and void ab initio.   Provision of section 13 is mandatory and subject to the proviso thereto a Certificate Officer has no jurisdiction to proceed with the execution of a certificate until and unless he has disposed of the objection, if any, filed under section 9.   The assessee, certificate-debtor, while clearly denying his liability made a prayer for adjustment of the demand against dues owing from Government:   Held, that under section 9 (1) a certificate-debtor is free to deny his liability in part and in this view of the matter the petitioner company may be said to have been rightly advised to make the said prayer for adjustment as it could not be sure whether any amount would or would not be found due from it on a proper assessment in accordance with the law.   Neither the contract nor the intention of section 13 can be said to demand that the word "shall" occurring in that section may be taken to have been used in the sense of "may".   Rain Padarath Mahto v. Mishri Sinha and another A I R 1961 S C 480 considered.   Omission to verify objection is only a formal defect.   Syed Mohiuddin and others v. Pirthichand Lal Chaudhry 19 C W N 1159 ref.   A sale ab initio void…