9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (10) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hdrawn on 1st March, 1978. But the fact remains that the first respondent has set in motion the process under section 24(2)(a) of the Act for recovery of the aforesaid taxes as if they were arrears of land revenue. The first respondent issued a distraint notice dated 31st January, 1979, under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act (2 of 1864). The petitioners challenge this distraint notice in the present writ petition. Mr. K. Venkatasubba Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioners, states that the application under section 24(2) is being freshly prosecuted against the petitioners and the petitioners are not aware of the withdrawal of C.T.M.P. No. 246 of 1977 on 1st March, 1978, as stated by the respondents. The learned counsel states tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by him. The two remedies are definitely distinct and separate. After clause (a) the word "or" has been consciously incorporated in the provision. This word is portent, and to a very great extent, it indicates that the remedy under clause (a) is to the exclusion of the remedy under clause (b). It is true when there are two or more remedies prescribed by law, there is no justification to hold that one excludes the other and normally, both the remedies are available to the person who claims them. Such is the dictum expressed by Mahmood, J., in Shankar Sahai v. Din Dial (1890) ILR 12 All 409 (FB). This dictum of Mahmood, J., was referred to by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Francis Co. [1961] 12 STC 119 (SC). There, the Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Mysore v. S.S. Yalamali [1968] 21 STC 305 relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, has taken a similar view and I am in respectful agreement with the same. One factual controversy is being raised before me and that is with reference to the pendency of the proceedings under section 24(2)(b) of the Act. While the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the said proceedings are pending, Mr. Lokapriya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned Government Pleader, states that no such proceedings are pending and they have been withdrawn. Since I have adjudicated the contention raised by the petitioners on principle, I think the proper order to issue would be to direct the first respondent not to prosecute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
