9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1979 (3) TMI 57 - SC - Income TaxInterpretation of the various clauses of s. 3(1) of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act 1964 Held that - Clause (c) of s. 3(1) of the Validation Act is also important and it clearly and expressly provides that no proceedings in relation to the Government dues shall be invalid merely because no fresh notice of demand was served upon the assessee after the dues were enhanced or reduced in any appeal or proceeding. It is therefore plain that in neither of the two cases did the certificate proceeding become invalid in one case by reduction of the demand and in the other by an enhancement. In both the cases notices under s. 7 of the Bengal Act had been served upon the certificate-debtors before the property in question was transferred by them to the company. The transfer was therefore void against the certificate claims in both the cases under s. 8(a) of the Bengal Act. Appeal allowed with costs payable by the respondent-company the judgment and order of the High Court are set aside and it is directed that the certificate case shall proceed to disposal in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 3(1) of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 (Validation Act). 2. Validity of the certificate proceedings under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 (Bengal Act) without fresh notice after reduction or enhancement of tax dues. 3. Locus standi of M/s. Jardine Henderson Ltd. to object to the sale of property purchased from certificate-debtors. Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Section 3(1) of the Validation Act: The main controversy between the parties was the effect of the Validation Act on the two certificate proceedings. The Validation Act was enacted to overcome difficulties in the collection of income-tax and other direct taxes created by the Supreme Court decision in ITO v. Seghu Buchiah Setty [1964] 52 ITR 538 (SC). The Act provides for the continuation and validation of proceedings in relation to Government dues, even when such dues are reduced or enhanced in appeal or other proceedings. Clause (a) of Section 3(1): When Government dues are enhanced in appeal or proceeding, the Taxing Authority must serve another notice of demand for the enhanced amount. The original proceedings may continue without a fresh notice for the enhanced amount. Clause (b) of Section 3(1): When Government dues are reduced, it is not necessary to serve a fresh notice of demand. The Taxing Authority must intimate the reduction to the assessee and the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO). The original proceedings may continue in relation to the reduced amount. Clause (c) of Section 3(1): No proceedings shall be invalid merely because no fresh notice of demand was served after the dues were enhanced or reduced. 2. Validity of Certificate Proceedings Without Fresh Notice: In Civil Appeal No. 1575 of 1971, the amount of the certificate was reduced based on information from the ITO, not on the certificate-debtor's objection. The High Court's view that a fresh notice under Section 7 was necessary was rejected. The Supreme Court held that the requirement of intimation under Section 3(1)(b)(ii) of the Validation Act was fulfilled, and the proceedings could continue for the reduced amount. In Civil Appeal No. 1965 of 1971, the original demand was enhanced. The High Court's view that a fresh notice of demand for the enhanced amount was necessary was upheld. The Supreme Court agreed that the original proceedings could continue, and the department could either initiate a separate proceeding for the enhanced amount or start a fresh proceeding for the entire amount. 3. Locus Standi of M/s. Jardine Henderson Ltd.: M/s. Jardine Henderson Ltd. purchased the property from the certificate-debtors after notices under Section 7 of the Bengal Act were served. The company objected to the sale, claiming it was unaware of the pending certificate cases. The Certificate Officer rejected the objection, holding that the purchase was void against any claim enforceable in execution of the certificate. The Supreme Court held that the company had locus standi to object under Rule 39 of Schedule II of the Bengal Act, similar to Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The company could show it had an interest in the property at the date of the notice under Section 7. However, since the notices were valid and the transfer was void under Section 8(a) of the Bengal Act, the company's purchase was void against the certificate claims. Conclusion: In Civil Appeal No. 1575 of 1971, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and directing the certificate case to proceed expeditiously. In Civil Appeal No. 1965 of 1971, the appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's judgment was upheld. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Validation Act ensured that certificate proceedings were not invalidated by changes in tax dues, providing clarity on the continuation of such proceedings.
|
