9911796707
TMI Blog1954 (3) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id, leaving a small balance still due. On 22nd September, 1951, the 1st respondent who is the Municipal Sales Tax Officer, Ernakulam, issued a notice to the petitioner stating that a sum of Rs. 278 was still due from him and inti- mating that if that amount be not be paid within a fortnight of the receipt of the notice steps will be taken through that State Government to recover the tax due. The notice was addressed to the petitioner at Padu Badri, South Kanara. The intimation is, and it is not disputed, that the amount will be recovered by proceedings against the properties situated in South Kanara in the State of Madras. The petitioner challenges the said notice as ultra vires the jurisdiction of the officer issuing it. The 2nd respond- e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1950, was passed making the Indian Revenue Recovery Act, I of 1890, applicable to Part B States. In the Gazette dated 18th July, 1950, a notification was issued by this State to clear doubts regarding the applicability of the provisions of the said Central Act for purposes of recovering sales tax due to the State. The questions that have been raised by the petitioner are that the legis- lative sanction relied upon to support the action taken against him will not apply to his case which relates to tax due to the erstwhile Cochin State. Entry No. 43 in the Concurrent List, Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which enabled the Central Legislature to promulgate Act XXXIII of 1950 applies only to claims arising subsequent to the date of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e but not sufficient light on the problem. As regards the interpretation of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act the views taken by the High Courts of Allahabad and Nagpur are conflicting [See (Firm) Danmal Parshotam Dass v. (Firm) Babu Ram Chhote Lal(3) and Banares Bank Ltd. v. Sri Prakasha Bhagwan Das Others(4) and Liladhar Daulatram Multani v. The State(5).] (iv) Under these circumstances, I consider it necessary that this Original Petition be referred for decision to a Full Bench which I do, so that that Bench may determine specifically the various questions that arise for solution and give an authoritative decision. As the reference is (1) (1952) I.L.R. 1952 T.C. 1. (4) (1946) A.I.R. 1946 All. 269. (2) (1951) I.L.R. 1951 T.C. 458. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould exist within the meaning of the Constitution for purposes of enforcement of a claim therein but there is nothing to indicate that the claim sought to be enforced must have arisen after any particular State came into existence within the meaning of the Constitution. The existence of the two States is necessary only at the time when the recovery of a claim is sought. Entry 43 relates to recovery in a State of claims arising not in that State. The word "arising" used in that Entry is in our view wide enough to comprise within its ambit claims that had already arisen as well as those thereafter to arise. The antithesis in the Entry is between the two places where the claim arose and where it is sought to be enforced. The reference is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
