In other words on the date on which he had effected attachment he was number a Tax Recovery Officer but he got the powers of a Tax Recovery Officer by virtue of the numberification dated August 14, 1963.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated june 18, 1965 of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeals Nos.
1 in C.A. No.
139 and 140 of 1964.
942 of 1966 .
The first respondent Ponnoose claimed to have obtained a decree for a certain sum against the assessee.
1 and 2 in C.A. NO.
This view was affirmed by a division bench in appeal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. These two appeals by special leave involve a companymon question relating to the validity of a numberification issued by the Government of Kerala in August 1963 empowering certain revenue officials including the Taluka Tahsildar to exercise the powers of a Tax Recovery Officer under the Income Tax Act 1961, hereinafter called the Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
G. Pudissery, for respondents Nos.
The Tahsildar had effected attachment of the shares subsequent to first April 1962 but prior to August 14, 1963.
2 and 3 in C.A. No.
942 and 943 of 1966.
943 of 1966 .
Certain shares standing in the name of the assessee were attached by the Tahsildar.
Consequently the attachments made by the Tahsildar were quashed.
942 of 1966 .
Jagdish Swarup, Solicitor General, T.A. Ramachandran and Sharma, for the appellant in both the appeals .
7 and 8 in C.A. No.
The Income Tax Officer took steps to recover the arrears through the Tahsildar.
The learned Single Judge held that the numberification empowering the Tahsildar to exercise the powers of a Tax Recovery Officer under the Act with retrospective effect was invalid.
The Act came into force on first April 1962.
G. Pudissery, for respondents Nos.
The facts in one of the appeals C.A. 942/66 may be stated One Kunchacko of Alleppey allowed the income tax dues from him to fall into arrears.
B. Dadachanji, for respondents Nos.
T. Desai, M.C. Chacko, A.K. Verma, J.B. Dadachanji, and O.C. Mathur, for respondent No.
943 of 1966 .
226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Kerala in which he challenged the action taken by the revenue officials including the Tahsildar for getting the shares, which had been attached, sold for satisfaction of the income tax dues of the assessee.
The companycluding portion was, This numberification shall be deemed to have companye into force on the first day of April 1962.
The numberification was expressly stated to be effective from 1st April 1962 a date prior to the date of the numberification.
He also got the shares standing in the name of the assessee attached in execution proceedings, Ponnoose filed a petition under Art.
