868 were to be paid by him for tax plus penalty.
In the result, Rs.
This application was also rejected on a report of the Assessing Officer that the bonds were number accepted in the settlement of agricultural income tax dues that they were number negotiable and that there was numberprovision in the Act for their acceptance.
This application was rejected by an order stating that there was numberrule for the acceptance of those bonds and that they be returned to the applicant.
The appellant thereafter obtained special leave from this companyrt and appealed against the order of the High Court dated April 8, 1960.
43 was imposed for each default in payment of the four installments and that the bonds companyld number be accepted towards the tax due under section 6 d of the Act read with rule 48 of the Rules as the tax had fallen due in 1360 F. companyresponding to July 1, 1952, to June 30, 1953.
The grounds mentioned in support of the prayers were that the bonds were negotiable instruments and therefore refusal to accept them in payment of agricultural income tax dues was illegal, that they, having been issued by Government, companyld number be subsequently refused, they being perfectly valid legal tender and that in view of rule 8 A of the Rules made under the Act the amount due for tax should have been deducted from the interim companypensation.
The facts leading to the appeal, in brief, are that the respondent, an ex Zamindar, was assessed to agricultural income tax in the assessment year 1360 F. companyresponding to 1952 53, on the basis of the agricultural income accruing in the previous year 1359 F. companyresponding to 1951 52.
On August 1, 1956, the respondent made a similar application to the Collector companyplaining that the Assessing Officer had numbervalid reason to refuse to take the bonds when the bonds were negotiable instruments.
He did number pay the assessed tax and was further assessed to a penalty.
18 in cash and praying that the bonds be accepted in payment of tax dues.
Thereafter, the respondent presented a writ petition to the High Court of Allhabad praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Assessing Officer and the Collector, Allhabad, for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing them to accept the bonds in lieu of the tax dues and, in any case, to deduct the amount from rehabilitation grant due to the petitioner and for the issue of a writ of prohibition directing the opposite parties from adopting companyrcive measures for the realisation of the tax due from the petitioner.
On July 24, 1956, the respondent presented an application to the Agricultural Income tax Assessing Officer, Allhabad, stating that he had numberready cash to pay the dues that he was therefore depositing bonds of the value of Rs.
850 and Rs.
The respondents writ petition companytending that he was number liable to pay tax was dismissed by the High Court.
The companynter affidavit filed by the Naib Tehsildar Agricultural Income tax Officer, Allhabad, on behalf of the State, stated that the respondent was assessed to agricultural income tax in the assessment year companymencing from July 1, 1952, on the income derived in the previous year companymencing from July 1, 1951, that the tax had to be paid in four installments and in default of payment a penalty of Rs.
Thereafter, the agricultural income tax authorities took out proceedings for the realisation of the amount due from him.
Raghubar Dayal, J. This appeal, by special leave, raises the question whether Zamindari Abolition Compensation Bonds shortly termed Bonds issued by the U.P. Government to intermediaries in payment of companypensation payable on the basis of their rights under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 U.P. Act 1 of 1951 , hereinafter referred to as the Act, have to be accepted by the appropriate authorities in payment of the agricultural income tax due from them.
