P S K MOHAMED DASTAGIR SAHIB Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER THIRD ADDITIONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ is prayed for. The petitioners asks that the notice of demand issued by the Special Deputy Tasildar for the collection of income -tax arrears in demand notice I. T. No. 499 of 1955 dt. 17th July, 1955, may be called for and quashed. The assessment relates to the asst. year 1949 -50 and the total amount of tax payable by the petitioner was found to be Rs. 7,515 -13 -0. Subsequently, after certain adjustments, the petitioner was informed that the arrears that remained to be paid was a sum of Rs. 7,191 -2 -0. Thereafter, a certificate was issued by the ITO under S. 46 (2) of the IT Act stating that a sum of Rs. 6,207 -8 -0 was the amount due as income -tax arrears. In pursuance of that certificate, a notice of demand was issued by the Special Deputy Tasildar for collection of income -tax arrears purporting to be under Act 11 of 1864 wherein also this last mentioned sum was shown as the arrears. The petitioner claims that the arrears so mentioned in the demand were not in accordance with the assessment order and that the certificate did not, therefore, specify the correct amount of arrears. The petitioner's contention accordingly is that the certificate issued indicating therein an amount different from what was the correct amount of arrears is under the law invalid and the demand notice issued on foot of such certificate would be equally invalid.

(2.) A further ground has been taken that Act 11 of 1864 not being applicable to the city of Madras, the demand purporting to be issued under that Act and the invocation of the powers under that Act are illegal. In the counter -affidavit filed by the respondents, the facts set out by the petitioner are admitted to be substantially correct. But it is claimed that the sum originally due from the petitioner was made up of income -tax and super -tax amounting to Rs. 6,207 -8 - 0 and penal interest of Rs. 1,308 -5 -0. Subsequently, there was an adjustment in respect of the penal interest leaving the balance of interest only of Rs. 983 -10 -0. There was also a claim by the petitioner for double income -tax relief to an estimated extent of Rs. 1,400. For these reasons, it was claimed that the certificate issued under S. 46 (2) of the Act was limited only to the tax. The contention further submitted was that the Act makes distinction between the tax, penalty and interest, and that where a certificate and the demand had not placed a figure of arrears at a figure higher than what is really due from the petitioner, the validity of the certificate or of the notice cannot be attacked. The short question that arises in this writ petition is whether the issue of the certificate for an amount less than what is really due from the petitioner as arrears invalidates the certificate and the consequent notice issued by the Collector. In putting forward this argument, learned counsel urges that what S. 46 (2) of the Act requires is that the amount of arrears due from an assessee should be "specified" in the certificate. "Specified", according to the learned counsel, means "indicate with accuracy or with precision." He refers to S. 29 of the Act which also requires that the notice of the demand should issue "in the prescribed form specifying the sum so payable"; to S. 45, where again "any amounts specified as payable in a notice of demand under S. 29" is referred to in dealing with the discretion of the ITO to treat the assessee as not being in default or otherwise.

(3.) LEARNED counsel referred us to the ordinary dictionary meaning of the expression. "Specify" according to the Oxford Concise Dictionary means "name expressly, mention definitely (items, details, ingredients, etc.)." "Specific" being the adjectival form is interpreted as "definite, distinctly formulated". Accordingly to Funk and Wagnall's New Standard Dictionary, the expression "specify" means "to mention specifically; state in full and explicit terms; name expressly or particularly." "Specific" is also defined as "distinctly and plainly set forth; specified; also pertaining to what is specified, definite, or determinate; distinct; particular; explicit; precise". It is no doubt true that the expressions "specify" or "specific" carry with them some connotation of particularity or precision. But, we cannot always rest upon the dictionary meaning of an expression in interpreting it for all purposes. An expression used in a statute must necessarily derive its meaning from the context in which it is placed.