1972 (3) TMI 22 - HC - Income Tax

Official liquidator was appointed as the provisional liquidator of the company on December 5 1967 and an order was made for the winding up of the company on May 10 1968 when the official liquidator became the liquidator - Whether leave of company court for issuing the note is necessary validity of notice

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the court to entertain the liquidator's application.
2. Validity of the Income-tax Officer's notice under section 178 of the Income-tax Act.
3. Applicability of section 446(1) of the Companies Act.
4. Priority of debt payment under section 530 of the Companies Act.
5. Interpretation of section 178 of the Income-tax Act and its interaction with the Companies Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Court:
The Income-tax Officer challenged the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that the Income-tax Act is a special enactment and a code by itself. However, the court held that section 446(2)(d) of the Companies Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the company court to entertain or dispose of any question of priorities, including tax liabilities, notwithstanding any other law.

2. Validity of the Income-tax Officer's Notice:
The Income-tax Officer issued a notice under section 178 of the Income-tax Act without obtaining leave from the court. The court found this action to be impermissible under the law. The notice required the liquidator to set aside Rs. 41 lakhs for tax payment, which was not classified as a preferential debt under section 530 of the Companies Act. The court held that the notice was invalid as it attempted to give priority to a non-preferential debt without legal basis.

3. Applicability of Section 446(1) of the Companies Act:
Section 446(1) prohibits any legal proceeding against a company under liquidation without the court's leave. The court emphasized that this provision aims to ensure that all unsecured creditors are treated equally and to prevent a scramble for the company's assets. The court cited Palmer's Company Law and previous judgments to reinforce this principle. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer's notice, issued without the court's leave, violated section 446(1).

4. Priority of Debt Payment under Section 530:
Section 530 of the Companies Act outlines the preferential payments, including taxes due within twelve months before the appointment of the provisional liquidator. The court noted that none of the tax liabilities claimed by the Income-tax Officer fell within this preferential period. Consequently, the tax debt could not be given priority over other debts. The court referenced several judgments, including Bank of Bihar Ltd. v. Secretary of State and Governor-General in Council v. Shiromani Sugar Mills Ltd., to support this interpretation.

5. Interpretation of Section 178 of the Income-tax Act:
The court examined section 178 of the Income-tax Act, which requires the liquidator to notify the Income-tax Officer and set aside funds for tax liabilities. However, the court found no provision in section 178 that overrides the priority rules in section 530 of the Companies Act. The court also cited the Supreme Court's decision in S. V. Kondaskar v. V. M. Deshpande, which held that the liquidation court has the authority to scrutinize tax claims and prioritize payments according to the Companies Act. The court rejected the argument that section 178 creates a super-priority for tax debts.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Income-tax Officer's notice was invalid as it was issued without the court's leave and attempted to prioritize a non-preferential debt. The notice was quashed, and the liquidator was not required to comply with it. The court ordered that the applicant (liquidator) was entitled to costs from the respondents.

← Previous Next →