N C MUKHERJEE AND CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-1967-1-26
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on January 18,1967

N.C.MUKHERJEE AND COMPANY Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Subba Rao, C.J. - (1.) These four appeals by certificate granted by the High Court at Calcutta are filed against the common judgment and order of that court in four civil revision cases arising out of the proceedings under the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 (Act XV of 1940).
(2.) The facts may be briefly stated. The appellant was a registered firm with our partners. For the accounting years ending with March 31 of the years 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945 the said firm was assessed to excess profits tax. Under notice dated September 3, 1954, the firm was directed to pay large amounts in respect of the said four years as excess profits tax by September 25, 1954. On March 12, 1956, the concerned Income-tax Officer forwarded four certificates to the Certificate Officer and Additional District Magistrate, 24-Parganas, for the recovery of the said amounts from the firm. On December, 20, 1956, the Certificate Officer issued notice to the firm under section 7 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 (Act III of 1913), hereinafter called "the Act", for the payment of the said amounts of tax The firm filed objections under section 9 of the Act denying its liablity to pay the amounts demanded from it. It also raised other objections with which we are not now concerned. The Certificate Officer rejected the objections. Against the said order of the Certificate Officer, the appellant firm preferred appeals under section 51 of the Act to the Commissioner, Presidency Division. The said Commissioner on April 18, 1958, dismissed the said appeals. Revision petitions filled by the firm to the Board of Revenue were rejected on April 21, 1960. The petitions filed by the firm against the orders of the Board Revenue in the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution were dismissed on September 26, 1962. Hence the present appeals.
(3.) Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant firm, raised before us constitutional and legal objections questioning the validity of the proceedings under the Act. But on an indication of the order we would be making n the appeals he withdrawn them. Nothing, therefore, need be said about them.;


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