TMI Blog1937 (12) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim was entitled to priority and (ii) whether, as a matter of procedure, the petition by the Income-Tax Officer to the civil court was sustainable. On both those points the lower court held against the present petitioner and directed payment to the Government in the first instance. Hence this revision petition by the decree-holder. So far as the priority of Government's claim is concerned, I see no reason to differ from the view taken by the lower court. Mr. Balasubramania Aiyar relied on an expression of doubt in Ramachandra v. Pitchaikanni as to the applicability in this country of the English doctrine relating to the priority of the Crown debts ; but I think the weight of authority in favour of the recognition of that priority even in this country is so strong that this expression of doubt cannot help the petitioner to any material degree, (Cf. 59 Mad. 428 and Varadachari v. Secretary of State, Gayanoda Bala Dassee v. Butto Kristo Bairagee, Soneram Rameshur v. Mary Pinto and the provisions in the Insolvency Acts relating to the priority of Crown debts). It is on the question of procedure that I have felt some difficulty. Some of the cases above referred to arose out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dure available for the collection of arrears of municipal tax or local rate. Provision is also made in sub-clause (5) for a requisition to persons paying salaries to assessees. It is a matter requiring consideration whether in view of these detailed provisions having been made by the statute itself for the recovery of assessment, it is permissible to recognise in addition an application to the ordinary civil Court which must prima facie be regarded as dealing only with the rights of litigants in the ordinary civil court. It may be that arrears of income-tax can be made the subject-matter of a regular suit as a Crown debt ; but whether an application under Section 151, C. P. C. or under any general principle of law was at all contemplated by the Income-Tax Act or by the provisions of the C. P. C. is a matter about which I entertain grave doubts, notwithstanding the respectful attention that I have given to the cases to which I have already referred. It is this point that I should like to be heard and decided authoritatively by a Bench subject to the order of the Chief Justice. The decision in C. M. P. 2083 of 1933 affords me no guidance because there was in that case distraint order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ector a certificate under his signature specifying the amount of arrears due from an assessee, and the Collector, on receipt of such certificate, shall proceed to recover from the assessee the amount specified as if it were an arrear of land revenue. Without prejudice to any powers of the Collector in this behalf he shall for the purpose of recovering the amount have in respect of the attachment and sale of debts due to the assessee the powers which under the Code, a civil court has in respect of attachment and sale of debts due to a judgment debtor for the purpose of the recovery of an amount due under a decree. By Sub-section (3) it is provided that in any area in respect of which the Commissioner has directed that any arrears may be recovered by any process enforceable for the recovery of an arrear of any municipal tax or local rate imposed under any enactment for the time being in force in any part of the province, the Income-Tax Officer may proceed to recover the amount due by such process. Under sub-section (5) if any assessee is in receipt of income chargeable under the head salaries the Income-Tax Officer may require the employer to deduct from his salary what is due by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o B it would naturally decline to do so and would make sure that B got it. Here, the Crown is entitled to the money in Court-there is no question about this-and asks the court to pay it out. The right to payment being indisputable, justice requires that it should be paid out to the Crown and formal application for payment has been made. It seems to me that both right and convenience demand that the court should exercise its inherent power. At one stage the learned advocate for the petitioner suggested that the attachment having taken place the petitioner was in the position of a secured creditor. This argument is not open to him in view of the decision of a Full Bench of this court in Krishnaswami Mudaliar v. Official Assignee of Madras. He did suggest that this decision has been overruled by the Judicial Committee in Anantapadmanabhaswami v. Official Receiver of Secunderabad, but is clear from a perusal of the report that their Lordships there refused to go into the question and reserved their decision for a future occasion. Consequently we have got to accept the decision in Krishnaswami Mudaliar v. Official Assignee of Madras as stating the law correctly ; and the petitioner i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
