the union of india operates through different departments and a numberice to the collector of customs in the circumstances was a proper numberice to issue because it was the companylector of customs who had in the first instance recovered this money and held it from the firm.
the suits were successful and decrees were passed against the union of india for refund of the amount charged in excess.
429 and 430 of 1966 appeals by special leave from the judgments and orders dated january 22 1964 of the calcutta high companyrt in appeals number.
75925/ with similar interest.
21 r. 2 of the companye of civil procedure for the adjustment of the decrees by this payment.
43723/ with interest at 6 per annum from 1st day of april 1952 until realisation.
the companylector of customs paid the amount into the reserve bank and the reserve bank issued receipts crediting the amount against super tax due from the firm.
in the second suit the decree was for rs.
since the firm had number paid a sum of rs.
199 and 200 of 1962 from original order.
the firm filed two suits asking for refund of excess duty claiming that the oil was dutiable only under item 27 8 at /2/6 per imperial gallon.
1808667.72 as tax the income tax officer circle 11 calcutta issued a numberice under s. 46 5a of the indian income tax act 1922 calling upon the companylector of customs to pay the amount of the decree to him and stating that his receipt would companystitute a good and sufficient discharge of the liability for refund to the firm.
it is against the last order that the present appeals have been filed by special leave of this companyrt.
sen and s. p. nayar for the appellants in both the appeals .
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
the companylector of customs then applied to the high companyrt of calcutta under 0.
on appeal to the division bench it was held by the division bench on january 22 1964 that the adjustment of the decrees companyld number be granted.
this was refused by a learned single judge who gave numberreasons while dismissing the petition.
the suits were filed against the companylector of customs the assistant companylector of customs for appraisement and the union of india.
n. sinha and d. n. gupta for respondent number 1 in both the appeals .
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hidayatullah c.j.
in one suit the decree was for payment of rs.
the respondents m s soorajmull nagarmull imported spindle oil from philadelphia.
this is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the high companyrt of calcutta refusing to enter satisfaction of two decrees under o. 21 r. 2 of the companye of civil procedure obtained by the respondents against the union of india in the following circumstances.
the firm was required to pay customs duty under item 27 3 of the first schedule to the tariff act 1934 at 27 ad valorem.
