9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to recover the amount from the decree-bolder who has taken away the amount. The result, therefore, is, the appeal of revenue(UOI) is allowed - - - - - Dated:- 5-2-1985 - Judge(s) : R. B. MISRA. and O. CHINNAPPA REDDY. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY J.- The Union of India is the appellant before us. In respect of income-tax due from respondents No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... several dates in December, 1958. We may mention here that the attachment by the decree-holder was itself subsequent to the prohibitory order by the Collector. As we said earlier, the Tehsildar really slept over the matter and it was in 1961 that he woke up and thereafter a suit was filed by the Union of India to recover the sum of Rs. 20,245 which had been taken away by the third respondent out o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought, as the amount had already been taken away by the third respondent, the Government could no longer exercise its right to priority. It is difficult to agree with this proposition. It is a general principle of law that debts due to the State are entitled to priority over all other debts. If a decree-holder brings a judgment-debtor's property to sale and the sale proceeds are lying in deposit i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.C., contemplates such a relief being granted in a suit. The High Court relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Manickam Chettiar v. ITO [1938] 6 ITR 180, as supporting its conclusion. We, however, find nothing in the decision which supports the case of the respondent. What was decided in that case was that it was not necessary for the Crown to have obtained a decree before it could ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
