Supreme Court: Interest under Income Tax Act enforceable against liquidator without court sanction

The Supreme Court held that interest accrued under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act is legal and enforceable against the official liquidator without prior sanction of the company court as required by section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The court ruled that income tax assessment proceedings do not fall under the purview of section 446(1) and prior court sanction is not mandatory for assessing interest under section 220(2). Recovery actions against a company in liquidation require leave from the winding-up court, and interest recovery without court approval was invalidated, directing refund to the official liquidator.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the interest accrued under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act is legal and enforceable against the official liquidator without prior sanction of the company court as required by section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the legality of demanding interest under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act from a company in liquidation without the prior sanction of the company court as mandated by section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The official liquidator contested the demand of interest, arguing that it was illegal and unenforceable without the court's approval. The initial application by the official liquidator was allowed by a learned judge, stating that interest levy without court sanction was impermissible. This decision was challenged by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) through an appeal (Application No. 839 of 1981).

The primary contention revolved around the interpretation of section 446(1) of the Companies Act, which prohibits legal proceedings against a company in liquidation without the court's leave. The interest under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act accrues when the assessee fails to pay the tax demanded within the specified time. The Supreme Court's rulings in various cases were cited to determine the applicability of section 446(1) to income tax assessment proceedings. The court referred to precedents such as Union of India v. India Fisheries and Governor-General in Council v. Shiromani Sugar Mills Ltd. to analyze the scope of legal proceedings under the Companies Act.

In the judgment, it was emphasized that assessment or reassessment proceedings for income tax do not fall under the purview of section 446(1) of the Companies Act. The court highlighted that the winding-up court cannot assume the functions of the Income Tax Officers in assessing tax liabilities, as the Income Tax Act provides a separate hierarchy for tax assessment, appeals, and revisions. The court rejected the notion that prior court sanction is required for interest assessment under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, distinguishing it from penalty assessment proceedings.

The court also addressed the issue of recovery proceedings, stating that seeking leave from the winding-up court is necessary before commencing any recovery actions against a company in liquidation. The judgment further invalidated the adjustment of interest recovery without court approval and directed the refund of the recovered interest to the official liquidator. Ultimately, the appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs, affirming that prior court sanction is not mandatory for assessing interest under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act.

---