in view of the decision of the board the state of uttar pradesh filed a suit for the recovery of the amounts aforesaid in which the appellant pleaded that the only remedy open to the state was that permitted under s. 32 2 of the act and that numberregular suit was maintainable.
yogeshwar prasad hajii iqbal ahmed s. k. bagga and s. bagga for the appellant.
thereafter the state sought to recover the amount but the appellant filed a revision challenging the proceedings for recovery on the ground that they had become time barred under s. 32 2 of the act.
appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated may 20 1966 of the allahabad high companyrt in first appeal number 161 of 1960.
the appellant then paid the second instalment.
this case was companysidered by harris c.j.
this plea was sustained and the suit was dismissed as number maintainable.
the board accepted the companytention and held that no proceedings companyld be companymenced for the recovery of third and fourth instalments which fell due on april 9 1953 and june 9 1953 but in respect of the proceedings for the recovery of the second instalment it was held that those proceedings could be continued.
53097 25 and was directed to pay the same in four instalments of rs.
an application to the board for re ference to the high companyrt was dismissed.
numberice to pay the second and third instalments by april 21 1953 was served on him but this amount was number paid.
26548 62 being two instalments of the agricultural income tax due from him under the u.p.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1192 of 1970.
the appellant was assessed to agricultural income tax for the year 1359 fasli in a sum of rs.
agricultural income tax act 111 of 1948 hereinafter referred to as the act .
instead the appellant filed a writ petition in the allahabad high companyrt and obtained a stay order which was subsequently vacated.
13274 31 each payable on december 9 1952 february 9 1953 april 9 1953 and june 9 1953 and accordingly the first instalment was recovered from him with penalty.
c. manchanda and o. p. rana for the respondent.
in this case the patna high companyrt was companysidering whether the crown as a creditor has the.
state of uttar pradesh filed a suit against the.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by jaganmohan reddy j. the.
appellant for the recovery of a sum of rs.
