JAGDISH SAHAI,J. - (1.) JUDGEMENT This special appeal is directed against the judgement of N.U. Beg, J. dated 6th January 1968. The respondent, Raja Ram Pratap Singh, filed writ petition No. 320 of 1965, which was allowed by Beg, J. by means of the judgement mentioned above. By means of the writ petition proceedings for realisation of arrears of tax were sought to be quashed.
(2.) THE father of the petitioner-respondent, Raja Ram Pratap Singh, was the proprietor of the Katiyari Estate. Admittedly he was assessed to agricultural income tax as also to large land holdings tax. A sum of Rs. 91,005.69 P. was being recovered from him as arrears of agricultural income tax in respect of the year 1359 F., a sum of Rs, 8,140.90 P. (inclusive of a sum of Rs. 1,615.65 by way of penalty) for the year 1361 F., a sum of Rs. 5,036.63 P. (inclusive of a sum of Rs. 900.00 by way of penalty) for the year 1363 F., a sum of Rs 7630.55 P. for the year 1365 F., and a sum of Rs. 11,323.56 (inclusive of a sum of Rs. 900.00 by way of penalty) in respect of the year 1366 F. A sum of Rs. 11,4.16.00 (inclusive of Rs. 1141.00 by way of penalty) was being recovered from him as large land holdings tax in respect of the year 1367 F. and a sum of Rs. 10,995.02 (inclusive of Rs. 720.00 by way of penalty) in respect of the year 1366 F. The total amount of the agricultural income tax that was sought to be recovered from the respondent is Rs. 1,04,183.22 P. and that of the large land holdings tax is Rs. 41,324.02 P. Some amounts were also being recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. The petitioners case before the learned single Judge was that by virtue of the provisions of Section 32(2) of the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Section 23 of the U.P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1957) these recoveries could not be made as the claims become barred by time. This submission found favour with the learned single Judge, who as already said earlier, allowed the writ petition and quashed the proceedings of recovery initiated by means of the notice dated April 28, 1965. The learned single Judge did not record any finding with regard to the amount sought to be recovered as land revenue nor did he hold that the same could not be recovered, but he allowed the writ petition in its entirety.
(3.) WITH great respect to the learned single Judge we do not agree with the view taken by him. It is true that under Section 32(2) of the Act "no proceeding for the recovery of any sum payable under this Act shall be commenced after the expiration of one year from the date on which the last instalment fixed under Section 30 falls due." This Sub-Section, however, has a proviso, which reads :- "(i) Where an assessee has been treated as not being in default under proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Section 30, as long as his appeal is undisposed of, be reckoned from the date on which the appeal is disposed of; (ii) Where recovery proceedings in any case have been stayed by any order of a court of any other authority, be reckoned from the date on which the order is withdrawn; (iii) Where the date of payment of agricultural income tax has been extended by any authority, be reckoned from the date up to which the time for payment had been extended; Provided further that nothing in the foregoing proviso shall have the effect of reducing the period within which proceedings for recovery can be commenced, namely, after the expiration of one year from the date on which the last instalment fixed under Section 30 fell due." ;