Judgment

JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. :- The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a suit against the appellant for the recovery of a sum of Rupees 26,548-62 being two instalments of the Agricultural Income-tax due from him under the U. P. Agricultural Income-tax Act (III of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The appellant was assessed to Agricultural Income-tax for the year 1359 Fasli, in a sum of Rupees 53,097-25 and was directed to pay the same in four instalments of Rupees 13,274-31 each payable on December 9, 1952, February 9, 1953, April 9, 1953 and June 9, 1953, and accordingly the first instalment was recovered from him with penalty. Notice to pay the second and third instalments by April 21, 1953 was served on him but this amount was not paid. Instead, the appellant filed a Writ Petition in the Allahabad High Court and obtained a stay order which was subsequently vacated. Thereafter the State sought to recovery the amount but the appellant filed a revision challenging the proceedings for recovery on the ground that they had become time barred under Section 32 (2) of the Act. The Board accepted the contention and held that no proceedings could be commenced for the recovery of third and fourth instalments which fell due on April 9, 1953 and June 9, 1953, but in respect of the proceedings for the recovery of the second instalment it was held that those proceedings could be continued. An application to the Board for reference to the High Court was dismissed. The appellant then paid the second instalment.

2. In view of the decision of the Board, the State of Uttar Pradesh filed a suit for the recovery of the amounts aforesaid in which the appellant pleaded that the only remedy open to the State was that permitted under S. 32 (2) of the Act, and that no regular suit was maintainable. This plea was sustained, and the suit was dismissed as not maintainable. The High Court, however, in an appeal reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and decreed the suit. Against that judgment, his appeal is by certificate.

3. It is contended before us that the only mode of recovery of arrears of tax or penalty due under the Act is under Section 32, and the State cannot recover any such amount by any other mode such as by a suit. Section 32 is as follows :

"32. Recovery of penalties - (1) The Collector may, on the motion of assessing authority, recover any sum imposed by way of penalty under the provisions of Section 17 or Section 31, or where an assessee is in default, the amount assessed as agricultural Income-tax as if it were an arrear of land revenue.

(2) No proceedings for the recovery of any sum payable under this Act shall be commenced after the expiration of one year from the date of which the last instalment fixed under Section 30 falls due or after the expiration of one year from the date on which any appeal relating to such sum has been disposed of."

4. Before we deal with the main contention, it may be stated that once a notice of demand is served on the assessee for payment of tax due under the Act, and the assessee makes a default after the date for payment specified therein has expired, a debt is created in favour of the State. This debt the State can recover by any of the modes open to it under the general Law. This is also the position under the Indian Income-tax Act, but it is contended that the analogous provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 46 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or the corresponding provisions of Section 232 of the Income-tax Act of 1961 cannot be relied upon for interpreting Section 32 of the Act inasmuch as there are special provisions in these Acts which enable the Revenue to file a suit for the recovery of arrears of tax due from the assessee. It is true that Section 232 of the Income-tax Act of 1961 provides that the modes of recovery under that Act are not exhaustive, but this clarification, which it is, does not imply that it is only by virtue of a specific provision that the legislature has conferred this