1980 (8) TMI 102

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ond respondent-Tahsildar of Bangalore North Taluk, in attaching certain properties, belonging to the petitioner, purporting to be for purpose of recovery of certain penalties imposed on a firm M/s. New India Corporation, Bombay, by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, under Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The penalty in a sum of Rupees 3,27,700/- was imposed by an Order dated 29-7-1963.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Customs was only against the firm and on the basis of such a certificate recovery proceedings against the petitioner in his individual capacity cannot be taken. As it was not clear whether the certificate that was being given effect to was against the firm or against the petitioner, the matter was being adjourned from time to time. 3. The High Court Government Pleader for the Tahsildar was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar that the proceedings taken by the Tahsildar to attach the properties belonging to the petitioner is not warranted Vide (1974) 95 ITR 321 P. Balachand v. Tax Recovery Officer affirmed on appeal in (1980) 121 ITR 871 (Kant). 6. A certificate issued could be enforced only on the person named therein and not on any other party. Sri Hakeem, however, submitted that as the petitioner was admittedly....