SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1954 Supreme(Cal) 12

LAHIRI, MITTER
ABANINDRA KUMAR MAITY – Appellant
Versus
A. K. BISWAS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
HEMENDRA KUMAR DAS, MANISHI KUMAR DAS, S.DAS, Smriti Kumar Roy Chaudhury

LAHIRI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a Rule under Article 227, Constitution of India obtained by the petitioner against certain proceedings pending against him before the Certificate Officer, Midnapore. The facts giving rise to this Rule may be stated as follows :

( 2 ) IN 1950 the Income-tax Officer, Midnapore, assessed the petitioner to pay an income-tax to the extent of Rs. 6,613/- for an alleged concealed income of Rs. 28,101/- for the year 1946-47 in Income Tax Case No. 162-M of 1946-47 and against that assessment order the petitioner filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax which is still pending.

( 3 ) ON 26-3-1952, at the instance of the Income Tax Officer, Midnapore, the Certificate Officer of Midnapore started a proceeding under the Public Demands Recovery Act against the petitioner which was registered and numbered as Certificate Case No. 62-P/8 of 1951 and 1952 and directed a notice under Section 7 of the said Act to be issued. On receipt of the notice under Section 7 the petitioner filed an application for staying the proceeding till the disposal of the appeal by the Assistant Commissioner, which was rejected on 25-5-1952.

( 4 ) ON failure of the pe




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top