Judgment

UNTWALIA, J.:- These two appeals one by the Union of India and the other by M/s. Jardine Henderson Ltd. are by certificate granted by the Calcutta High Court. Since the facts in both the cases are very much similar involving the interpretation of the various clauses of Section 3 (1) of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964, hereinafter referred to as the Validation Act, the two appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. There were two brothers named Basanta Kumar Daw, respondent No. 2 in Civil Appeal No. 1575 of 1971 and Haridhan Daw, respondent No. 2 in Civil Appeal No. 1965 of 1971. The facts of Civil Appeal No. 1575 of 1971 are these : For realization of arrears of income-tax dues the Certificate Officer of 24 Parganas forwarded to the Collector a Certificate in accordance with S. 46 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 specifying the amount of arrears due from respondent No. 2 Thereupon a Certificate case was started against him (Basanta Kumar Daw) under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, hereinafter called the Bengal Act, by the Certificate Officer acting as a Collector. Notice under S. 7 was served on the Certificate-debtor on 31-10-1949, Basanta Kumar Daw entered appearance and filed an objection under S. 9 of the Bengal Act. This objection was rejected by the Certificate Officer by his Order dated March 8, 1951. On April 2, 1951 the Certificate-debtor made an application for review of the said order dated 8-3-1951 stating therein, inter alia, that the appeal preferred by him before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had been allowed in part and some payments also had been made since then; the Certificate case, therefore, could not proceed for the recovery of the sum of Rupees 36,874.10 annas, the original amount mentioned in the Certificate. The Certificate Officer declined to review his previous order and rejected the review petition. But he made certain enquiries from the Income-tax Officer whether the amount of the Certificate had to be reduced. The Income-tax Officer informed him that the Tribunal had reduced the demand on appeal on 13-9-1950 and after adjustment of the previous payments made by the Certificate - debtor the revised demand stood at Rupees 19,001.3 annas only. Thereupon the Certificate Officer amended the Certificate on the basis of the information received from the Income-tax Officer and reduced the demand. On July 13, 1956 he directed the issue of sale notice under Rule 46 (2) framed under the Bengal Act in respect of the half share of Basanta Kumar Daw (the other half belonging to his brother Haridhan Daw) in premises Nos. 201 to 205/1, Old China Bazar Street, Calcutta.

3. Now a few facts of the other appeal being Civil Appeal No. 1965 of 1971 may be stated. The Income-tax Officer sent a requisition to the Certificate Officer of 24 Parganas for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 59,541.15 annas against Haridhan Daw, respondent No. 2 in this appeal. A Certificate case was started. A notice under S. 7 of the Bengal Act was served on the Certificate-debtor on Jan. 30, 1951. He also filed a petition of objection under S. 9. But the Certificate Officer by his order dated January 13, 1954 rejected the objection filed by the Certificate-debtor under the Bengal Act. A review application was also rejected in this case on January 27, 1954. On March 2, 1954, the Income-tax Officer informed the Certificate Officer that the original demand of Rs. 59,541.15 annas and been enhanced to Rs. 59,604.7 annas under S. 35 of the Income-tax Act and requested him to relalize the enhanced amount. The order under Section 35 was passed on March 2, 1953. The Certificate Officer thereupon informed the Income-tax Officer that the 975 Bengal Act did not provide for enhancing the demand of the existing Certificate and asked him to file a separate Certificate for the additional amount. He, however, continued the Certitifate proceedings fo