TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (2) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income-tax due from respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for several years, certificates under s. 46(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, were issued to the Collector of Coimbatore for the recovery of the tax as arrears under the Revenue Recovery Act. In his turn, the Collector issued prohibitory orders on March 30, 1957, against the transfer of shares owned by the defaulting assessees in Kaleeswar Mills Ltd. an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... away by the third respondent out of sale proceeds towards his decree. The suit was resisted by the third respondent. The trial court decreed the suit but the judgment of the trial court was reversed by the High Court, which dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal. The simple submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the State had a priority over other creditors and that the atta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le proceeds are lying in deposit in court, the State may, even without prior attachment, exercise its right to priority by making an application to the executing court for payment out. If, however, the State does not choose to apply to the court for payment of its dues from the amount lying in deposit in the court, but allows the amount to be taken away by some other attaching decree-holder, the S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tained a decree before it could apply to the court for payment out of amounts brought to court by the sale of property in execution of a simple money decree obtained by some other attaching decree-holder. We fail to see how that case can possibly help the respondent. As pointed out by Vivian Bose J. in Zumberlal Chhotelal Agarwal v. Sitaram, AIR 1937 Nag 80, the prior attachment fastens itself to ....