Substantial compliance saved a public demand recovery certificate; immaterial filing and form defects did not invalidate recovery.

A certificate issued under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 for recovery of assessed income-tax and penalty was upheld despite objections to filing, form, and description. A statutory filing requirement was satisfied by the certificate being preserved in the office, entered in the register, and produced when needed. No requisition under Section 5 was necessary because the demand was recoverable under Section 4. The addition of descriptive words to the Income-tax Officer's name did not change the certificate holder's identity, and omission of the period in the amount column was immaterial because income-tax becomes due on demand, not for a fixed period. The challenge to the certificate's validity failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a certificate issued under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, for recovery of assessed income-tax and penalty was invalid on the grounds that it was not properly filed, no requisition under Section 5 was made, the certificate holder's name was wrongly described, and the amount column did not state the period for which the demand was due.

Analysis: A document directed by statute to be filed in an office does not require any formal or technical act of filing beyond being preserved in the office in a manner by which it can be produced when required. The certificate was shown on its face as filed, was entered in the statutory register, and was produced from the office, which was sufficient proof that it had been duly filed. Since the amount was payable to the Collector, the certificate rightly proceeded under Section 4 and not under Section 6, so no requisition under Section 5 was necessary. The addition of the words describing the Income-tax Officer did not qualify or alter the name of the certificate holder, which remained the Secretary of State, and therefore did not affect validity. The omission to state a period in column 4 was also immaterial, because income-tax is not in law due for any particular period; it becomes due when demand is made under the Act and is then a debt due to the Crown.

Conclusion: The certificate was valid and none of the objections succeeded; the challenge to its legality failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a certificate to be filed in an office and the demand is otherwise lawfully recoverable as a public demand, substantial compliance with the prescribed form is sufficient and immaterial defects that do not affect the substance or validity of the demand will not invalidate the certificate.

---