1962 (9) TMI 82 - HC - Income Tax

Certificate defect does not invalidate notice under section 7. Stamped signature valid. Execution remitted for limitation review.

Sethani Chhoti Debi Versus Union of India and others

Sethani Chhoti Debi Versus Union of India and others - [1964] 51 ITR 473 Issues Involved1. Validity of the Certificate due to Defect in Form2. Validity of Notice under Section 7 due to Different Dates3. Service of Notice under Section 74. Validity of Notice under Section 7 due to Stamped Facsimile Signature5. Bar of Limitation on Execution of CertificateDetailed Analysis1. Validity of the Certificate due to Defect in FormThe petitioner argued that the certificate was invalid because the form used differed from the prescribed form in Schedule II of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. The court held that the defect of form did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. The public demand of Rs. 13,997-8-0 was justly due to the Union of India, and the recovery was not barred by limitation on the date of the certificate's signing. Additionally, the Bengal Public Demands Recovery (Validation of Certificates and Notices) Act, 1961 (West Bengal Act XI of 1961) cured any defect, error, or irregularity in the form, making the certificate valid.2. Validity of Notice under Section 7 due to Different DatesThe petitioner contended that the certificate and the notice under section 7 were invalid because they were not signed on the same date. The court rejected this contention, stating that the notice under section 7 need not be signed on the same date as the certificate. The notice dated April 9, 1956, was correctly dated as it was signed on that date. Any incorrect statement in the body of the notice did not invalidate it, and any defect was cured by the West Bengal Act XI of 1961.3. Service of Notice under Section 7The petitioner argued that the notice under section 7 was not served upon her. The service return of the bailiff showed that the notice was accepted by the petitioner's son, R.P. Dudhwala. The Commissioner found that the petitioner was duly served with the notice, and the court saw no reason to interfere with this finding.4. Validity of Notice under Section 7 due to Stamped Facsimile SignatureThe petitioner contended that the notice under section 7 was invalid because the Certificate Officer did not sign the copy of the notice served upon her with his own hand. The court held that the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, and the rules in Schedule II did not require the Certificate Officer to sign with his own hand. A facsimile signature stamped with a rubber stamp was sufficient. The court preferred the decision in Haraprosad Gain v. Gopal Chandra Gain over Abanindra Kumar Maity v. A.K. Biswas, holding that the notice was valid even with a stamped facsimile signature.5. Bar of Limitation on Execution of CertificateThe petitioner contended that the execution of the certificate was barred by limitation. The Commissioner dismissed the objection on the ground that it was time-barred, thinking it was a petition under section 9. The court found that the objection raised the question of whether the execution of the certificate had become barred by the law of limitation under section 56(2) of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. The court held that the tribunals below were bound to hear and determine this objection under section 37. The Board of Revenue should not have dismissed the revision petition summarily without fixing a date for hearing and issuing a notice to the petitioner.ConclusionThe court adjudged and declared that the notice under section 7 was duly served on the petitioner. The order of the Board of Revenue was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Board of Revenue to decide whether the execution of the certificate is barred by the law of limitation and to dispose of the petitioner's objection in accordance with law. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.