Suits for recovery of income-tax arrears are excepted from the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under section 19 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.

1. For the assessment year 1947-48, 1he petitioner was assessed under the head "capital Gains", on a sum of Rs. 35,300/-, being the sale proceeds of premises No. 2, Sadananda Road. The tax assessed on the aforesaid sum was calculated at Rs. 2,256/13/ -.

2. For realisation of the tax as assessed, certificate Case No. 2819 I. T, of 1951-52 was started against the petitioner before the Certificate Officer, 24-Parganas, under the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act read with section 46 (2) of the Indian Income -Tax Act.

The petitioner filed a suit, being Title Suit No. 34 of 1955, in the First Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore, for a declaration that the assessment was illegal and also for a declaration that the certificate proceeding and the orders passed thereunder were inoperative and without jurisdiction and for an injunction restraining the opposite party herein from proceeding with the certificate. The suit succeeded to a limited extent. The learned Subordinate Judge declared that the certificate proceeding, on the basis of the notice under section 7 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, offended against the provisions of the public Demands Recovery Act itself and could not be proceeded with as such. The other prayers made in the plaint were, however, refused.

3. A second attempt on the part of the present opposite party to recover the Income-tax dues, under the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act, also failed, on grounds with which I am not concerned in this Rule.

4. Thereupon, the opposite party, Union of India, filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1956/81 np., being the arrears of tax due from the petitioner, less payments already made. Paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the plaint, filed in the court of Small Causes, Calcutta, are set out below:-

"notwithstanding the said order of the Certificate Officer, Alipore, the defendant is still liable to pay the aforesaid balance arrears of tax namely Rs. 1956/13/-due from him as aforesaid.

17. The cause of action arose wholly within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this court where the orders assessing the defendant were made and arose on 6-7-50 and on 2-11-50 when the defendant first committed defaults in payment of the tax demanded of him under section 29 of the Indian Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1947-48 and on every successive day of default since then.

18. The plaintiff in this suit seeks to recover from the defendant the aforesaid outstanding balance tax, namely Rs. 1956/81 np, as aforesaid, and prays for judgment and decree against the defendant for the said sum of Rs. 1956/81 np., with all costs of this suit and for interest on the decretal amount at 6 per cent. per annum until realisation in full and for such other and further orders and reliefs which to the Court may seem fit and proper. "

The present petitioner filed a written statement denying the allegations in the plaint. By its judgment dated September 5, 1960, the Court below decreed the claim made by the plaintiff-opposite party. The propriety of the decree is being disputed before me in this Rule.

5. A singular point was argued by Mr. Nani Coomar Chakravarti, learned Advocate for the petitioner, in support of this Rule. Mr. Chakravarti contended that under section 19 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, had no jurisdiction to try suits concerning the assessment or collection of the revenue". The suit filed by the plaintiff-opposite party was essentially a suit for collection of revenue, namely, balance of income-tax dues and as such was excepted from the cognizance of the Small Causes Court.

6. Mr. Balai Lal Pal, learned Advocate for the opposite party, tried to get, rid of the objection as to the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court on the following line of reasoning. He contended on the authority of the decision by the Privy Council in the case of Doorga Prosad Chamaria v.