TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and realized towards the principal amount; and the calculation of the balance amount, if any - 1678 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 6-8-2010 - RAJES KUMAR AND PANKAJ MITHAL , JJ. In substance the prayers made in the writ petition are for the quashing of the recovery citation dated February 16, 1985 and the letter dated August 20, 2004 of the Assistant Collector, First Class/S.D.M., Bharthana directing the Deputy Post Master, Bharthana to pay a sum of Rs. 7,55,948 as arrears of sale tax dues from the post office account of the petitioner and for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to return a sum of Rs. 3,36,000 with interest which is said to have already been released by the Deputy Post Master on August 24, 2004 in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as per letter dated September 2, 2004. The petitioner Shiv Nath Singh Yadav (since deceased), now represented by his widow Smt. Tara Devi Yadav was doing business of foodgrains. He fell in arrears of sales tax for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76 detailed as under: A.Y. Date of assess-ment order Tax imposed in Rs. Tax deposited in Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the price of the land as per circular of the Board of Revenue dated August 6, 1976. A sale certificate dated August 26, 1983 issued in favour of the District Magistrate has also been filed as annexure 3 to the aforesaid counter-affidavit. He has also suggested that as still some of the amount remained unpaid, the same has rightly been recovered from the post office accounts of the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit filed by one Vinod Singh, the then Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Trade Tax, Bharthana, Etawah, the averments made in the writ petition have not been disputed but it has been contended that as the amount was due against the petitioner the same could have been recovered at any time and the passage of many years in between would not absolve the petitioner of his liability. In rejoinder to the above counter-affidavit the petitioner contends that no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded before issuing the letter or order dated August 20, 2004 so as to intimate the amount which had remained due and payable despite attachment and sale of property in the year 1983. Another counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 sworn by R.P. Cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner's land in favour of the District Magistrate according to the report of the Lekhpal dated February 19, 2010, the land is in actual cultivation of the petitioner. A chart has also been annexed showing that on the demand of Rs. 1,33,948 of trade tax for the years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 an interest of Rs. 6,09,589 accrued and as such a total of Rs. 7,43,537 became due on August 26, 2004. It has further been shown in the chart that the amount of Rs. 3,36,000 withdrawn from the post office accounts of the petitioner has been adjusted against the principal demand of Rs. 80,322 for the years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and partly to the tune of Rs. 2,55,678 towards interest accrued on the demand of the aforesaid years. In this way, original demand of Rs. 53,626 for the year 1975-76 with interest amount of Rs. 1,20,638 for the outstanding tax up to 1974-75 and further interest on the outstanding amount of the year 1975-76 to the tune of Rs. 2,33,273 still remains unpaid. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 4,43,573 is still payable by the petitioner. The narration of the above facts brings to the forefront that under the impugned recovery certificate dated February ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of limitation in making a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act held that though no limitation is prescribed for making such a reference nevertheless the power has to be exercised within a reasonable period depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In another case of Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy [2003] 7 SCC 667 their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing the words at any time held that exercise of suo motu power where no time-limit is prescribed depends upon the facts of each case and the power can be exercised within a reasonable time and observed as under: . . . Exercise of suo motu power 'at any time' only means that no specific period such as days, months or years are not prescribed reckoning from a particular date. But that does not mean that 'at any time' should be unguided and arbitrary. In this view, 'at any time' must be understood as within a reasonable time depending on the facts and circumstances of each case in the absence of prescribed period of limitation. The above principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the recent case reported in State of A.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, a period of 12 years from the date of issuance of recovery certificate can be construed to be a reasonable period for recovering such dues though not as an absolute rule. Viewed from the above angle, the period of 19 years is certainly not a fair and reasonable time. It is also relevant to note that there is nothing on record to indicate that any information was ever given by the respondents to the petitioner that the demand under the recovery certificate dated December 16, 1985 had remained unsatisfied and that the principal amount sought to be recovered along with interest accrued thereon had swelled to over Rs. 7,00,000 as indicated in the chart annexed with the supplementary affidavit of Ram Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, where the recovery certificate had remained pending for such a long time, it would have been more appropriate and in consonance with the principles of natural justice to have issued a formal letter to the petitioner informing about the outstanding dues and the calculation of the interest thereon before realizing any amount directly from his post office accounts. This not having been don ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecover the amount due by not taking concrete steps to realise the same within a reasonable time from the date of issuance of the recovery and at the same time have burdened the petitioner with the interest liability many times more the principal amount of tax due. In Hindu Law, the rule of Damdupat deals with the debts. According to this age old rule of Hindu Law, the amount of interest recoverable at any one time cannot exceed the principal. This rule may not be in use very effectively but it has not been totally done away with. In fact, legislation in certain States affecting transactions of money lenders, prohibits recovery of interest in excess of the principal amount. The above rule is based upon a sound socio-economic ideology to prevent a situation once a debtor always a debtor . In an era in which it is necessary to maintain such socio economic equilibrium, the levy or addition of such a high amount of interest exceeding the principal amount originally due cannot be considered to be a healthy practice in the eyes of law. Thus, we are of the opinion that the respondents are not justified in charging interest on the unpaid amount for all these years at least after 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 50, C.P.C., envisages that the legal representative of the judgment-debtor is liable to satisfy the decree only to the extent of the property of the deceased, which had fallen into his hand. The position of the present petitioner is that of a legal representative of a judgment-debtor and as such cannot be held liable to satisfy the dues of her deceased husband in excess of what she has inherited from him. This aspect of the matter has to be examined by the authorities. In view of the facts and circumstances and the above discussion, we are of the opinion that even though the recovery initiated on February 16, 1985 was not technically barred by limitation yet it was not just and proper to realise any amount from the petitioner after such a long distance of 19 years that too without any intimation of the amount still due and the amount of interest accrued thereon. However, as the amount of tax due had remained unpaid and the petitioner was legally bound to pay the same as there is no time-limit prescribed to recover the same any irregularity in recovering it may not force us to struck it down as a whole, we are not inclined to either quash the recovery dated February 16, 1985 or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
