1968 (8) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s the Union of India, represented by the Second Income-tax Officer, Tirunelveli. The Uthamalai Zamin was notified and taken over with effect from January 3, 1951, under the provisions of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948. The State Government deposited the last instalment of final compensation and also certain interim payments earlier. In proceedings under section 42 of the Act, the Union figured as a c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reditors are excluded from making claims against interim payments. This view receives support from Lakshminarayana v. Lakshmi Venkayamma and Jaya Shri Devi Rajkumari of Vizianagaram v. Lalita Kumari Devi. It follows, therefore, the Union's claim in this regard was rightly disallowed by the Tribunal. The result is that S.T.A. No. 4 of 1967 will stand dismissed. Chidambaram Chettiar v. Venkatesa ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t a contingent liability. That concludes the point in favour of the Union except for 1951-52. The Tribunal should, therefore, consider the Union's claim out of the last installment of final compensation on that basis. So far as the penalty is concerned, the source of liability is the order levying penalty. We find that out of the claim of the Union on this account two at least related to orders....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Union of India. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the Government of India is entitled to claim priority for arrears of income-tax due to it from a citizen over debts from him to unsecured creditors. That common law principle the Tribunal was bound to apply. Mr. Habibullah for one of the creditors says that the Tribunal having been entrusted with the power of distribution of the compensatio....