1965 of 1971 may be stated.
A review application was also rejected in this case on January 27, 1954.
Thereupon the Certificate Officer amended the Certificate on the basis of the information received from the Income tax Officer and reduced the demand.
A numberice under section 7 of the Bengal Act was served on the Certificate debtor on January 30, 1951.
The order under section 35 was passed on March 2, 1953.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12 1 1968 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No.
36,874.10 annas, the original amount mentioned in the Certificate.
But in the High Court as also here the main companytroversy between the parties was the effect of the Validation Act on the two Certificate proceedings.
Two revisions were filed before the Board of Revenue which were allowed.
The Company went up in appeal before the Commissioner and succeeded in both the cases.
201 to 205/1, Old China Bazar Street, Calcutta.
On July 18, 1956 he directed the issue of sale numberice under Rule 46 2 framed under the Bengal Act in respect of the half share of Basanta Kumar Daw the other half belonging to his brother Haridhan Daw in premises number.
Notice under section 7 was served on the Certificate debtor on 31 10 1949.
1965 of 1971 purchased the whole of the premises in question on September 20, 1954 for a total sum of Rs.
The Certificate Officer declined to review his previous order and rejected the review petition.
On March 2, 1954, the Income tax Officer informed the Certificate Officer that the original demand of Rs.
M s. Jardine Henderson Ltd., respondent in Civil Appeal No.
In both the cases the Company received a numberice on August 6, 1956 fixing a date for settling the terms of the sale proclamations in respect of the respective one half share of each of the two Certificate debtors.
But the Certificate Officer by his order dated January 13, 1954 rejected the objection filed by the Certificate debtor under the Bengal Act.
Now a few facts of the other appeal being Civil Appeal No.
A Certificate case was started.
The Certificate Officer rejected the objection holding that the purchase having been made after service of numberice under section 7 of the Bengal Act on the Certificate debtor, was void as against any claim enforceable in execution of the Certificate and hence the Company had numberright to object to the sale.
But he made certain enquiries from the Income tax Officer whether the amount of the Certificate had to be reduced.
59,541.15 annas against Haridhan Daw, respondent number 2 in this appeal.
On April 2, 1951 the Certificate debtor made an application for review of the said order dated 8 3 1951 stating therein, inter alia that the appeal preferred by him before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal had been allowed in part and some payments also had been made since then the Certificate case, therefore, companyld number proceed for the recovery of the sum of Rs.
1575 of 1971 and appellant in Civil Appeal No.
S. Desai, S. P. Nayar and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appellant.
1575 was allowed and hence the Union of India has companye up in appeal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
This objection was rejected by the Certificate Officer by his Order dated March 8, 1951.
1575 of 1971 and Haridhan Daw, respondent number 2 in Civil Appeal No.
The respondent company then moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
1965 of 1971 was dismissed by the same Bench and the Company has, therefore, companye up in appeal.
T. Desai, J. Ramamurthi and D. N. Gupta for the Respondents and Vice Versa.
The Certificate Officer thereupon informed the Income tax Officer that the Bengal Act did number provide for enhancing the demand of the existing Certificate and asked him to file a separate Certificate for the additional amount.
19,001.3 annas only.
Since the facts in both the cases are very much similar involving the interpretation of the various clauses of section 3 1 of The Taxation Laws Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings Act, 1964, hereinafter referred to as the Validation Act, the two appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.
The other petition giving rise to Civil Appeal No.
3,00,100/ purchasing one half of the undivided share from each of the two brothers.
1965 of 1971.
He also filed a petition of objection under section 9.
He, however, companytinued the Certificate proceedings for the recovery of the original amount.
The facts of Civil Appeal No.
1575 and 1965 of 1971.
59,541.15 annas had been enhanced to Rs.
The Income tax officer sent a requisition to the Certificate officer of 24 Parganas for the recovery of a sum of Rs.
2523 and 2527 of 1960.
Thereupon a Certificate case was started against him Basanta Kumar Daw under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, hereinafter called the Bengal Act, by the Certificate Officer acting as a Collector.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J. These two appeals one by the Union of India and the other by M s Jardine Henderson Ltd. are by certificate granted by the Calcutta High Court.
59,604.7 annas under section 35 of the Income tax Act and requested him to realize the enhanced amount.
Immediately thereafter the respondent company made an application in each of the two cases that it had purchased the property being unaware of the pendency of any Certificate case against any of its vendors for realization of income tax dues and that the Company was the owner of the property and it was number liable to be sold as that of the Certificate debtor.
There were two brothers named Basanta Kumar Daw, respondent number 2 in Civil Appeal No.
The Income tax Officer informed him that the Tribunal had reduced the demand on appeal on 13 9 1950 and after adjustment of the previous payments made by the Certificate debtor the revised demand stood at Rs.
1575 of 1971 are these For realization of arrears of income tax dues the Certificate Officer of 24 Parganas forwarded to the Collector a Certificate in accordance with Section 46 2 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 specifying the amount of arrears due from respondent number 2.
The Validation Act was number there when the orders were passed either by the Commissioner or the Board of Revenue.
The petition giving rise to Civil Appeal No.
