TMI Blog1945 (1) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 1st April, 1933, issued under the provisions of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, is a valid certificate. The appellant in his case claims further that the certificate, if originally valid, became unenforceable by reason of matters which occurred after the filing of the suit; but their Lordships are of opinion that the relief claimed in this suit must be confined to matters existing at the date when the suit was instituted. On the 27th February, 1933, the appellant was assessed to income- tax and super-tax by the Income-tax Officer, Howrah, under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the years 1928-29, 1929-30 and 1930-31, the assessments being made under the provisions of Section 23, sub-section (4). Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he demand is due and cause the certificate to be filed in his office. Section 5 provides that when any public demand payable to any person other than the Collector is due, such person may send to the Certificate Officer a written requisition in the prescribed form. Section 6 provides for the recovery of a demand in respect of which a requisition has been made under Section 5. Section 7 provides that when a certificate has been filed in the office of a Certificate Officer under Section 4 or Section 6, he shall cause to be served upon the certificate-debtor, in the prescribed manner, a notice in the prescribed form and a copy of the certificate. Section 9 enables the certificate-debtor within the time limited to present a petition to the Cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticulars given were Income-tax and penalty. On the same day the Certificate Officer ordered the issue of notice under Section 7 of the Act, and on the 1st May the appellant filed objections to the certificate proceedings under Section 9 of the Act. On the 1st August the Certificate Officer passed orders holding the certificate to be invalid, but this order was set aside by the Collector on the 7th September, 1933, and the case was remanded to the Certificate Officer. The order of the Collector was finally upheld by the Commissioner on 18th December, 1933. On the 7th September, 1933, the Certificate Officer passed the following orders:- Amend the certificate and put down Secretary of State for Income-tax Officer, Howrah, in column 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtificate if valid. At the trial the Subordinate Judge at Howrah decreed the plaintiff's suit, holding that the certificate of 1st April, 1933, was void since no order was shown to have been made for its filing, and the name of the certificate holder was wrongly given since the name of the Secretary of State should have appeared without qualification. On appeal the High Court of Calcutta reversed this decision and dismissed the plaintiff's suit for reasons with which their Lordships are in substantial agreement. The validity of the certificate has been challenged before the Board on four grounds:- First it is said that the Certificate Officer did not cause the certificate to be filed in his office, since he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it is objected that the name should be without qualification, and that in the certificate in question the name is qualified by the words On behalf of Income-tax Officer, Howrah. In their Lordships' opinion the addition of the words on behalf of Income-tax Officer, Howrah does not in any way alter or qualify the name of the certificate holder which is given as the Secretary of State. The words do no more than indicate the nature of the demand for which the certificate is held, information more appropriate to be stated in column 3 than in column 2, but the inclusion of the words in their Lordships' opinion, has no effect whatever on the validity of the certificate. The last objection to the certificate is that in column 4 no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
