9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (12) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Chief Judge, the petitioner company contended that they were not defaulters inasmuch as they had discharged their liability in so far as the opposite party's claim is concerned, pursuant to a notice issued by the income-tax authorities under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The learned Chief Judge on a consideration of the materials placed before him came to the conclusion that the petitioners were defaulters inasmuch as they had not deposited the statutory interest due to the landlord in accordance with the provision of the Act with the income-tax authorities and the petitioners were also defaulters at least in respect of the months of June and July, 1970. The learned Chief Judge, further, held that the current rents have not also been deposited by the defendant and in view of the decision reported in the case of Hanuman Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Dhanuka Industries Pvt. Ltd. ((1975) 79 Cal WN 88) came to the conclusion that the defendant did hot comply with the requirement of Section 17 (1) or (2) of the Act and accordingly allowed the opposite party's application and struck out the defence of the petitioner. It is against this order the petitioner moved this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decision rendered by the learned single Judge on November 8, 1973 afforded protection to the petitioner, no such protection would be available after the decision was reversed on September 23, 1974. 6. In order to examine the respective contentions of the parties, it is necessary to set out a few further facts. On August 28, 1970 the petitioner was served with a prohibitory notice under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act which inter alia recites that a sum of ₹ 8,24,370 is due from the plaintiff opposite party on account of income-tax and the petitioner was required to forthwith pay any amount due from him to the plaintiff or held by him on plaintiff's account and it was further stated in the said notice that whatever payment was made by him in compliance with the notice will, in law, constitute a good and valid discharge of the petitioner's liability to the person assessed to the extent of the amount paid. The said notice has been marked annexure 'A' to the petition. Pursuant to this notice, the petitioner is alleged to have paid half the rent for the months of August and September, 1970 to the credit of the Income-tax Department on November 6, 1970 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jee, could therefore be regarded as payment to the landlord within the meaning of Section 17 (1) of the Act. 8. We have carefully gone through the table annexed to the revisional application (Annexure 'C') and there is little doubt that had these deposits as enumerated therein, been made either with the Rent Controller or with the Court, they could not be regarded as valid deposits within the meaning of Section 17 (1) of the Act. Undoubtedly, half month's rent upto May 1974 had been in deposit at the date of service of the writ of summons and the remaining half month's rents from June 1970 to May 1974 were deposited in a lump on August 8, 1974 that is beyond the period of one month from the date of service of writ of summons. This apart, no interest as Mr. Mukherjee contends, has been paid to the credit of the income-tax authorities in accordance with the requirement of Section 17 (1) of the Act. Besides, the rent for the month of June, 1974 and September to November, 1974 as also January 1975 could not be regarded as valid deposits or payments within the meaning of Section 17 (1) of the Act. That is, these amounts were not deposited or paid by the 15th of each s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and those contained in Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the principle of implied repeal cannot be called in aid for the purpose of Article 254(2) of the Constitution nor can it be said to be a case of direct conflict between the provisions of the two statutes. Moreover, if there is an apparent conflict between the two independent provisions of law, one special and one general, the special provision must prevail. Section 226 of the Income-tax Act is a general provision applicable to all assessees and in all circumstances enumerated therein but Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act deals with particular classes of tenants, who had made defaults and against whom proceedings for eviction have been initiated. It is also settled law that if there is any inconsistency in the provisions of a general law and a local law, the provisions of local law shall prevail and the general statute must yield to the provisions of the special Act applicable to a particular locality. Mr. Tibrewal however contended that Section 226 of the Income-tax Act is a special provision and in a case of a conflict between two speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income-tax Act amounted to a garnishee order and the petitioner could not so long as the notice stood make any payment whatsoever to the landlord. The said decision, in our view, does not assist Mr. Tibrewal at all. In that case before the Supreme Court the tenant was no doubt served with a notice under Section 46 (5A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (now Section 226(3)) directing him to deposit all sums by way of rent as also future rents and this notice was utilised by the tenant to withhold payment to everyone viz. landlord, Income-tax Officer, the Receiver appointed by the Court and others. Such a contention were also advanced before the Supreme Court and it was repelled. The decision impliedly holds that the provisions of Section 15(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act was not in any way superseded or abrogated by Section 46 (5A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. It is true that the tenant in that case did not make any payment or deposit with the Income-tax Officer as was done by the petitioner in the instant case. But, as already pointed out, these deposits were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. The Division Bench decision in the case of Hanuman Estates Pvt. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
