on april 26 1961 the income tax officer wrote to the respondent stating that payment of rs.
the respondent also enclosed a companyy of the companytract with t. s. baliah.
the respondent replied on march 25 1961 saying that there are no payments due and payable to shri t. s. baliah cine artist as on the date of receipt of your letter.
the respondent enclosed a statement of account which showed that on march 28 1960 a cheque for rs.
on june 26 1961 the respondent wrote to the income tax officer protesting that the respondent was number liable to pay the sum of rs.
v. viswanatha iyer s. k. aiyar s. p. nayvar for r. n. sachthey for the appellants.
7000/ was given to t. s. baliah on february 9 1961 cash amounting to rs.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated october 10 1963 of the madras high companyrt in writ petition number 71 of 1962.
srinivasan and r. gopalakrishnan for the respondent.
on january 18 1962 the respondent filed the petition under art.
86111/12.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sikri j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the madras high companyrt allowing the petition filed under art.
the numberice is in the same form except that the sum to be recovered had increased to rs.
20000/ in pursuance of his numberices dated june 18 1959 and march 21 1961 issued under s. 46 5a of the indian income tax act 1922.
20000/ already paid to baliah as such payments did number companytravene the numberice under s. 46 5a dated june 18 1959.
the iii additional income tax officer sent a letter dated june 18 1959 to the respondent saying i understand that you have engaged the services of shri t. s. balaiah for a film being produced by you.
on march 22 1961 anumberher companymunication was sent enclosing a numberice under s. 46 5a of the indian income tax act.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 401 of 1966.
6000/ was paid to him and again on march 18 1961 cash amounting to rs.
226 of the companystitution by budha pictures madras respondent before us.
the respondent had inter alia prayed for a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of a writ directing the 4th income tax officer city circle v madras to forbear from companylecting from the respondent the sum of rs.
hence there is numbercontract with said shri t. s. baliah and companysequently we are unable to companyply with your request.
the respondent replied on june 26 1959 as follows we have number engaged sri t. s. baliah for acting in our production number 2.
20000/ to the income tax department within three days from the receipt of the letter.
20000/ was illegal and without jurisdiction.
20000/ on or before september 7 1961.
these numberices came to be issued in the following circumstances one t. s. balaiah a cine artist was apparently in arrears of income tax.
after giving the above facts and the grounds the petitioner in brief alleged that according to law the demand made by the income tax officer for the sum of rs.
20000/ giving various reasons which need number be mentioned at this stage.on august 29 1961 the income tax officer declined to accept the companytention of the respondent and requested him to pay tothe department rs.
20000/made to t. s. baliah was in violation of the numberice under s. 46 5a issued on june 18 1959 and requested the respondent to pay the sum of rs.
7000/ was paid to him.
