23,100, the respondent paid arrears of tax to the extent of Rs.
23,100.
All these facts were companymunicated to the Collector by the Income Tax Officer who made independent enquiries for himself and had reason to believe that the respondent was wilfully withholding payment of arrears of tax and had been guilty of fraudulent companyduct in evading payment of tax.
As a certificate had already been issued to him by the Income Tax Officer under s. 46 2 of the Indian Income Tax Act, the Collector proceeded under s. 48 of the Act to issue a warrant of arrest against the respondent in companysequence of which he was arrested and lodged in Central Jail, Cannanore.
145 A of 1954.
Appeal under Article 132 1 of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated July 23, 1954, of the Madras High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
Enquiries also revealed that although the respondent had closed his business at Cannanore in August, 1947, he had set up a firm in 1948 at Tellichery carrying on an identical business in the name of V.P. Abdul Azeez Bros. companysisting of his one major and four minor sons.
In the assessment proceedings before the Income Tax Officer companycerning the firm V.P. Abdul Azeez Bros., the source of these jewels was gone into, but it was found that the same had number been proved and it was held that the business of V.P. Abdul Azeez Bros. belonged to the respondent.
The respondent had alleged that the capital of this firm was mainly supplied from the sale of jewels belonging to his wife, that is, Abdul Azeezs mother.
Demand numberice had been served upon him on November 6, 1947 and the series of transactions of sale started on November 18, 1947.
After deducting the amount so realised the arrears of income tax were about Rs.
Out of the said sum of Rs.
He denied that the above mentioned firm belonged to him.
Some amount was recovered by the Collector in pursuance of a certificate issued by the Income Tax Officer under s. 46 2 of the Indian Income Tax Act and bY the Income Tax Officer himself under s. 46 5 A of the said Act.
132 1 , in companysequence of which the present appeal is before us.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellants.
61,668 and odd for the assessment Years 1943 44, 1945 46 to 1948 49.
70,000.
Pocker and B. K. B. Naidu, for the respondent.
10,500 only.
In the High Court, the petition under s. 491, Criminal Procedure Code, was heard by Mack and Krishna.
Meanwhile the Income Tax Officer had made enquiries into the affairs of the respondent and had discovered that he had sold certain properties of his between November 18, 1947 and March 25, 1948 to the tune of about Rs.
The respondent had filed a petition in the High Court under s. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that directions in the nature of habeas companypus may be issued for his production before That Court to be dealt with according to law and for his release from imprisonment.
The circumstances, as stated in the affidavits filed by the Collector and the Income Tax Officer of Kozikhode in the High Court, which led to the respondents arrest, were, that he had been assessed to income tax for various assessment years and the total amount of tax remaining outstanding against him, in round figures, was Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM J. The appellant obtained a certificate from the Madras High Court to the effect that the case involved a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution under Art.
The respondent had been arrested on June 1, 1954 in pursuance of a warrant issued on March 10, 1954 by the Collector of Malabar under s. 48 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act Madras Act 11 of 1864 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
April 11.
922 of 1954.
