| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1968 SLG 189 1968 SLD 189 (1968) 68 ITR 721 |
Calcutta High Court
CIVIL REVISION CASE Nos. 959(W) AND 960(W) OF 1963, JULY 17, 18, 1967
D. BASU, J
K.C. Banerjee and Bhagbati Prosad Banerjee for the Petitioner. Balai Lal Pal, Debi Prosad Pal and Amiya Kumar Mukherjee for the
Respondent
CIVIL REVISION CASE Nos. 959(W) AND 960(W) OF 1963, JULY 17, 18, 1967
D. BASU, J
K.C. Banerjee and Bhagbati Prosad Banerjee for the Petitioner. Balai Lal Pal, Debi Prosad Pal and Amiya Kumar Mukherjee for the
Respondent
Chandi Charan Laha
v.
Tax Recovery Officer
Law:
Section:
Section 2(44) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Tax recovery officer - M, who was appointed as Additional District Magistrate (ADM) was to be terminated by superannuation as from end of May, 1960 - Before his termination, two orders dated 28-3-1960 were issued and published in Gazette whereby 'M' was appointed as ADM for a period upto 28-2-1961 and was vested with powers of a first class magistrate - On 28-2-1961, Deputy Secretary of Government of State in land and land revenue department issued a letter to 'M' that his services along with same other officers was allowed to be continued in their posts upto 31-3-1961 which was extended upto 30-4-1961 - Thereafter, upto 29-2-1962 and further extended upto a period of October, 1963 - In meantime, assessee defaulted in payment of tax upon which a certificate was issued by 'M' purporting to act as TRO in June, 1963 - Assessee challenged validity of proceedings on primary ground that 'M' was not duly appointed as a TRO under section 2(44) inasmuch as notification conferring powers of First Class Magistrate having been published in Gazette subsequent to publication of notification appointing him as an ADM might be held invalid in view of expressed provisions of section 10(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Whether technical vagaries of departments due to carelessness, indifference and otherwise could not be efficacee that patent fact that State Government sought to appoint 'M' as a magistrate, first class for a period of re-employment and then appointed him as an ADM as was required by Code and, therefore, appointment could not be declared to be invalid - Held, yes FACTS The assessee defaulted in payment of tax upon which a certificate was issued by one 'M' purporting to act as a TRO. The assessee challenged the validity of the entire proceeding on the primary ground that 'M' was not duly appointed as a TRO and had, therefore, no jurisdiction to issue the certificate in question and to proceed upon its basis which was rejected. On revision : HELD Under section 2(44), in order to exercise jurisdiction as a TRO a person must be either a Collector or an Additional Collector or an officer empowered to act as a…
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