SATISH CHANDRA BHOWMICE Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(CAL)-1960-9-2
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 16,1960

SATISH CHANDRA BHOWMICE Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THESE three Rules were issued under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and they are directed against orders of the Board of Revenue, West Bengal, dismissing the petitioner's objection against the certificate proceedings and a common question of law regarding the validity of the certificate arises in each of the three cases.
(2.) CIVIL Rule No. 2023 of 1960 arises out of a certificate proceeding for realisation of Rs. 11,597-11 as. as penalty imposed under section 46 (1) of the Income Tax Act for the year 1950-51 in respect of income in India and Pakistan and a certificate was purported to be signed for that amount but in the fourth column of the tabular statement of the certificate was mentioned only "section 46 (1)" without giving any indication the section of which Act was meant. Upon the objections by the petitioner before us who was mentioned as the certificate-debtor before the Certificate Officer, that officer by his order dated the 21st December, 1957 overruled other objections of the petitioner but held that he was not in default in respect of Pakistan income and the Income-tax-officer was directed to specify the penalty imposed under the Indian Income Tax Act and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month in the meantime. Against that order the petitioner took an appeal to the Commissioner, Presidency Division. That appeal was dismissed but the order of the certificate officer excluding the penalty in respect of Pakistan income was set aside and the certificate officer was directed to amend the certificate by inserting the words "indian Income Tax Act" after the figures "46 (1)" and to issue fresh notice under section 7 of the Public Demands Recovery Act. The petitioner then moved an application for revision under section 53 of the Act before the Hon'ble Member, Board of Revenue. That application was rejected. Thereafter the petitioner moved this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and obtained the Rule. The learned Advocate, Mr. Probodh Kumar Das Gupta, appearing for the petitioner before us attacked the validity of the certificate and also the legality of the certificate proceeding on three grounds. The first contention was that the purported certificate was in a form different from the form prescribed under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act and does not mention in the real certificate portion the amounts for which the certificate has been signed as is required by section 4 and the form prescribed under the Act. His second contention was that the tabular portion in form has not been filled in properly, giving the necessary particulars and, therefore, the certificate is not a proper certificate which can be executed under the Public Demands Recovery Act. His third contention was that in the notice under section 7 the form prescribed by the Act requires the notice to be signed and issued on the day the certificate is filed in the office of the certificate officer and the form for such notices prescribed under the Act includes the words "this day" in the text of the notice. The certificate officer has not complied with that requirement and has mutilated the form by scoring through the word in the Bengal form used by him and has signed the notice issued after correction of the certificate on a date different from the date of his filing the certificate.
(3.) IN Rule No. 2024 a certificate was purported to have been signed and filed for recovery of Rs. 53,676-10as. as arrears of income tax and in respect of that also the proceedings" before the certificate officer, the Commissioner of Presidency Division and the Board of Revenue took the similar course as in the other case and Mr. Prabodh Kumar Das Gupta appearing for the petitioner in this Rule complained of similar defects in the certificate and the notice under section 7 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act and also complained that the particulars that the demand was in respect of the tax imposed on alleged undisclosed income was not mentioned in the appropriate column in the tabular portion of the certificate.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.