1968 (7) TMI 75

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ied. The present petitioners are his three sons. Their complaint is that without any prior notice to them, proceedings for the recovery of the arrears of tax due from their late father were commenced against them and on 15th March, 1968, a sale proclamation was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Shahjahanpur, acting on behalf of the Collector under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the sale of their house situated in Deoria and their certain zamindari plots situated in the same village. The sale proclamation stated that the property was to be sold for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,617.40 being the sales tax plus interest thereon. According to the petitioners, 15th April, 1968, was the date fixed for the auction of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uch time, not being less than 15 days from the date of service of the notice of assessment and demand, as may be specified in the notice. In default of such payment, the whole of the amount then remaining due shall become recoverable in accordance with sub-section (8)." Sub-section (8) of section 8 stipulates: "Any tax or other dues payable to the State Government under this Act.....................shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue." A plain reading of these provisions shows that a notice of demand has to be served upon the person liable to pay the tax and on his failure to pay the amount within the time and in the manner specified in the notice of demand, he becomes a defaulter and can be proceeded against under sub-sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of tax having been reduced as a result of the order of the Appellate Commissioner, a fresh notice of demand had to be served upon the assessee before he could be treated as a defaulter and the recovery proceedings initiated against him had been rightly quashed. The instant case is on a much stronger footing. The tax had not been originally assessed against the petitioners and no notice of demand had therefore been served upon them. As the legal representatives of their late father, the petitioners are, of course, liable to pay the tax under section 7-C of the Act, but in order to enforce that liability and to recover the same as arrears of land revenue, it was necessary that they should have been served with a notice of demand as requ....