1970 (9) TMI 102 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the certificate proceedings due to non-compliance with the prescribed form.
2. Validity of the notice under section 7 issued on a different date than the certificate.
3. Application and impact of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery (Validation of Certificates and Notices) Act, 1961 (West Bengal Act 11 of 1961).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the certificate proceedings due to non-compliance with the prescribed form:
The main contention was that the certificate issued was not in accordance with the prescribed form, as mandated by the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act. The certificate in question did not follow the exact wording of the prescribed form, which led the trial court to deem it invalid, relying on the decision in Satish Chandra Bhowmick v. Union of India [1961] 65 C.W.N. 324. However, the appellate court referenced a later decision in Messrs. N. C. Mukherjee and Co. v. Union of India [1964] 51 I.T.R. 366; A.I.R. 1964 Cal. 165, which held that "a certificate is not rendered invalid by a mere defect of form and even by an omission to fill up a blank." The court preferred this latter decision, emphasizing that technical defects should not invalidate a certificate. Furthermore, the Bengal Public Demands Recovery (Validation of Certificates and Notices) Act, 1961, clarified that no certificate should be deemed invalid due to form defects, thus superseding the earlier decision.

2. Validity of the notice under section 7 issued on a different date than the certificate:
The second ground for the trial court's decision was that the notice under section 7 was dated differently from the certificate, which was considered invalid based on the Satish Chandra case. The appellate court, however, referred to the later decision in Messrs. N.C. Mukherjee and Company, which explained that a notice issued after the original was set aside could not bear the same date as the certificate. The court stated, "The true principle is that no certificate filed under section 4 or section 6 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, and no notice issued under section 7 of that Act should be pronounced to be invalid merely on the ground of a defect, error or irregularity in the form thereof." The court concluded that issuing a second notice with a different date does not invalidate the proceedings, especially considering the 1961 Act which cured such defects.

3. Application and impact of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery (Validation of Certificates and Notices) Act, 1961 (West Bengal Act 11 of 1961):
The appellate court emphasized the significance of the 1961 Act, which was enacted to validate certificates and notices despite any defects in form. The Act explicitly stated that "no certificate filed under section 4 or section 6 of the said Act and no notice served under section 7 of the said Act shall be deemed to be invalid or shall be called in question merely on the ground of any defect, error or irregularity in the form thereof." The court clarified that the statement of objects and reasons for the Act should not control the provisions of the enactment if the words are clear. The Act was intended to cure formal defects and ensure that such technicalities do not invalidate legal proceedings. The appellate court held that the defects cited by the trial court were cured by the 1961 Act, thus validating the certificate and notice in question.

Conclusion:
The appellate court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, and dismissed the suit. The court concluded that both grounds for invalidating the certificate proceedings were not sustainable due to the curative provisions of the 1961 Act. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.