Defects in form in a certificate and notice issued under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, do not invalidate the certificate or notice if they do not cause any prejudice to the petitioner and are cured by a validating statute.

1. IN this Rule the petitioner asks for an order under article 227 of the Constitution of India quashing an order of attachment passed in certificate case No. 348/i. T. (C) /55-56 by the Certificate Officer, 24-Parganas, alipore. The petitioner was assessed to income-tax and super-tax for the assessment year 1951-52 amounting to Rs. 13,997/8/ -. On a requisition made by the Income Tax Officer under section 46 (2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 the Certificate Officer signed a certificate dated March 31, 1956 under section 4 of the Bengal Public Demands recovery Act, 1913 stating that the demand is due from the petitioner to the Union of India and on the same date directed the entry of the certificate in Register X and the issue of a notice under section 7 of the Act. A notice under section 7 dated April 4, 1956, was served upon the petitioner on or about May 1, 1956. The certificate case was adjourned from time to time and on April 4, 1961 the Certificate Officer made an order for attachment of a sum of Rs. 2366-40 np. lying to the credit of the petitioner's account with messrs. Hindusthan Mercantile Bank of 201 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta. On May 23, 1961, the petitioner applied to the Certificate Officer for cancellation of the order for attachment order on the ground that (a) the notice under section 7 had not been served upon her and (b) further execution of the certificate was barred by the law of limitation. The petition was fixed for hearing on June 6, 1961. By his order dated June 6, 1961 the Certificate Officer dismissed the petition on the ground that (a) the petition was barred and (b) no one appeared in support of the petition at the time when it was taken up for hearing. The order sheet however noted that a lawyer appeared on behalf of the petitioner at 2 P. M. on the same date. An appeal preferred by the petitioner under section 51 (1) (b) was dismissed by the Commissioner, Presidency Division by his order dated May 1, 1961. The Commissioner held that (a) the notice under section 7 was duly served upon the petitioner and that (b) the petition was time-barred. The point that the petition is liable to be dismissed on ground that no body appeared before the Certificate Officer is no longer pressed by the opposite parties. A revision petition preferred by the petitioner under section 53 (1)was summarily dismissed by the Board of Revenue by its order dated November 2, 1961 without issuing any notice to the petitioner and fixing a date for hearing of the revision petition. The petitioner obtained this rule on February 27, 1962. The form of the certificate dated March 31, 1956 issued in this case is as follows:

"I certify that the sums mentioned over-leaf are due to the certificate-holder by the certificate-debtor (s) and that they are justly recoverable, the recovery by suit not being barred by law."

The form of the certificate adopted in this case differs from the form prescribed at the relevant time by the rules in Schedule ii of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended before us that in view of the differences in the form actually used and the form prescribed at the relevant time, the certificate is invalid. The defect of form has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. It is not disputed that the public demand amounting to Rs. 13997/8/- was justly due to the Union of India from the petitioner and that the recovery of the claim was not barred by limitation on the date of the signing of the certificate. Besides in view of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery (Validation of Certificates and Notices) Act, 1961, (West Bengal Act XI of 1961) the certificate cannot be deemed to be invalid and cannot be called in question merely on the ground of any defect, error or irregularity in the form thereof. For the reasons given in my judgment in (1) C. R. Cases Nos. 5483-4586 of 1960 (Messrs N. C. Mukherjee and Company v. Union of India) delivered to-day I am of the