| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1979 SLG 1276 1979 SLD 1276 (1979) 120 ITR 782 |
Calcutta High Court
APPEAL FROM APPELLATE DECREE No. 1827 OF 1970, SEPTEMBER 4, 6, 1978
D.C. CHAKRAVORTI, J
S.N. Saraf and Gouri Sankar Gupta for the Appellant. Balai Pal and N.L. Pal for the
Respondent
APPEAL FROM APPELLATE DECREE No. 1827 OF 1970, SEPTEMBER 4, 6, 1978
D.C. CHAKRAVORTI, J
S.N. Saraf and Gouri Sankar Gupta for the Appellant. Balai Pal and N.L. Pal for the
Respondent
Shambhoo Prosad Bajoria
v.
Union of India
Law:
Section:
Section 159, read with rules 9 and 11 of Schedule II to Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 37 of Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 - Legal representatives - On R's death, certificate proceedings were started for realisation of his tax dues, and his properties which were in hands of his legal representatives, were attached - A suit filed by legal representative praying for declarations that he was not liable to his personal capacity for tax dues of 'R', and that attachment of properties belonging to him was illegal and, also for permanent injunction, was decreed by Munsif - Addl. District Judge however set aside order passed by Munsif - Whether according to rule 9 of second Schedule to Act and section 37 of 1913 Act, any question relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a certificate duly filed under Act arising between ITO and defaulter or his representative should be determined not by a suit but by an order of TRO before whom such question arose unless fraud was alleged - Held, yes - Whether, moreover, when under Rule 11 any claim is preferred or any objection is made to attachment or sale of any property in execution of a certificate on ground that such property is not liable to attachment or sale, TRO has to proceed to investigate such claim or objection and it is only after completion of such investigation and making of an order by TRO that a party aggrieved by such order may bring a suit in a civil court - Held, yes - Whether, since, in instant suit, there was nothing to indicate that such stage was reached, having regard to provisions of rule 11, instant suit was a premature one - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, Additional District Judge rightly dismissed suit - Held, yes FACTS On the death of 'R', certificate proceedings were initiated against the legal representative and certain properties belonging to him were also attached. The legal representative filed a suit praying for, (a)a declaration that the plaintiffs were not liable in their personal capacity for the alleged tax dues of 'R'; (b)a declaration that the attachment of properties belonging to the plaintiffs was illegal, ultra vires, without jurisdiction and void; and (c)permanent…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492