TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1945 (1) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he only question which arises in the appeal is whether a certificate dated 1st April, 1933, issued under the provisions of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, is a valid certificate. The appellant in his case claims further that the certificate, if originally valid, became unenforceable by reason of matters which occurred after the filing of the suit; but their Lordships are of opinion that the relief claimed in this suit must be confined to matters existing at the date when the suit was instituted. On the 27th February, 1933, the appellant was assessed to income- tax and super-tax by the Income-tax Officer, Howrah, under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the years 1928-29, 1929-30 and 1930-31, the assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Certificate Officer is satisfied that any public demand payable to the Collector is due, he may sign a certificate in the prescribed form stating that the demand is due and cause the certificate to be filed in his office. Section 5 provides that when any public demand payable to any person other than the Collector is due, such person may send to the Certificate Officer a written requisition in the prescribed form. Section 6 provides for the recovery of a demand in respect of which a requisition has been made under Section 5. Section 7 provides that when a certificate has been filed in the office of a Certificate Officer under Section 4 or Section 6, he shall cause to be served upon the certificate-debtor, in the prescribed manner, a notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der was stated to be "Income-tax Officer, Howrah" and in column 4, the amount of the demand was stated to be Rs. 3,86,529-1-0 and in column 5 the particulars given were "Income-tax and penalty." On the same day the Certificate Officer ordered the issue of notice under Section 7 of the Act, and on the 1st May the appellant filed objections to the certificate proceedings under Section 9 of the Act. On the 1st August the Certificate Officer passed orders holding the certificate to be invalid, but this order was set aside by the Collector on the 7th September, 1933, and the case was remanded to the Certificate Officer. The order of the Collector was finally upheld by the Commissioner on 18th December, 1933. On the 7th September, 1933, the Ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....illegal, void and inoperative and for consequential relief, but there is no claim for modification of the amount alleged to be due on the certificate if valid. At the trial the Subordinate Judge at Howrah decreed the plaintiff's suit, holding that the certificate of 1st April, 1933, was void since no order was shown to have been made for its filing, and the name of the certificate holder was wrongly given since the name of the Secretary of State should have appeared without qualification. On appeal the High Court of Calcutta reversed this decision and dismissed the plaintiff's suit for reasons with which their Lordships are in substantial agreement. The validity of the certificate has been challenged before the Board on fou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der as appearing in the certificate. It is admitted by the appellant that if the monies were payable to the Collector, the name of the certificate holder should be the Secretary of State for India, but it is objected that the name should be without qualification, and that in the certificate in question the name is qualified by the words "On behalf of Income-tax Officer, Howrah." In their Lordships' opinion the addition of the words "on behalf of Income-tax Officer, Howrah" does not in any way alter or qualify the name of the certificate holder which is given as the Secretary of State. The words do no more than indicate the nature of the demand for which the certificate is held, information more appropriate to be stated in column 3 than ....