1971 Supreme(Mad) 582

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VEERASWAMI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVAN
Doraiswamy Gounder - Appellant
Versus
State of Madras - Respondent
Case No : No
Decided On : 27 August 1971

Headnote:

INCOME TAX - Recovery of arrears - Certificate issued by Income-tax Officer to Collector - Collector proceeding to recover arrears from assessee's sons - Assessee dead at time of issue of certificate - Whether Collector bound to take steps in pursuance of certificate issued in name of dead person - Madras Revenue Recovery Act (18 of 1864), S. 59 - Indian Income-tax Act (11 of 1922), Ss. 24B, 46(2).

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff's case was that he and his brother, Chenraya, as members of a joint Hindu family, owned 12 acres of land and a terraced house, and were cultivating 14 acres of land on lease for five years before the suit, their lessors being Ramachandran and Krishnan, sons of Gengu Reddy. The Tahsildar of Tiruppathur caused No. 1 demand notice issued to the village munsif of Kurizalapattu to realise the income-tax arrears to the extent of Rs. 2, 449.09 due to Government by Gengu Reddy. Gengu Reddy died in or about 1961, leaving behind his aforesaid sons as heirs. A notice was issued to the legal heirs for payment of the said arrears of their father. In spite of their contention that there was a partition in their family in 1950 and that they were not liable for any such arrears, the sugarcane crops raised by the plaintiff as lessee of Ramachandran and Krishnan on land belonging to Gengu Reddy were attached for recovery of the income-tax arrears. The plaintiff (lessee) filed an objection petition before the Tahsildar, Tiruppathur, stating that he was a lessee from Ramachandran and Krishnan (sons of Gengu Reddy), that the crops raised by him could not be attached for recovery of the income-tax arrears due by Gengu Reddy. The attached crops were on an extent of 3.16 acres in S. Nos. 385/2, 386/1, 387, 388 and 386/3 in Kurizalapattu, originally belonging to Gengu Reddy. The attachment was effected on January 25, 1962, and the crops were guarded by the Talayari or the village during which time there was a theft of part of the attached crop. On a report by the village munsif relating to the theft and under the direction of the Tahsildar a criminal complaint was lodged with the Alangayam police that the plaintiff committed an offence of theft by removing the attached sugarcane crops. The plaintiff was charge-sheeted for theft before the Sub-Magistrate, Vaniyambadi. The case was transferred to the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Tirupattur, and the plaintiff was convicted. The plaintiff preferred Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 1962 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tirupattur, who allowed the appeal. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed the above suit claiming damages under the following heads : (1)Rs.750 towards payment of his counsel fee and conveyance charge for defending in the criminal case, (2) Rs.250 for obtaining certified copies, for procuring the attendance of witnesses and for his travelling and boarding charges, (3) Rs. 500 as damages for loss of prestige, humiliation and mental anguish due to the criminal proceedings, and (4) Rs. 2, 000 being the value of sugarcane crops which he could not reap on account of the illegal attachment and thereby suffered loss to the extent.

Finding of the Court:

The Collector is entitled to proceed under the provisions of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, 1884, for recovery of the amount mentioned in the certificate without any amendment of the certificate. In Dhanalakshmi Ammal v. Income-tax Officer, Rajamannar C.J. and Panchapakesa Aiyar J. pointed out the procedure to be adopted in such cases. The Collector is entitled to proceed against any of the properties of the defaulter standing in his name. The recovery can be made in different ways : (1) by the seizure and sale of movable property, (2) by attachment and sale of immovable property, and (3) in execution against the person of the defaulter.

Issues: 1. Whether the suit against the Government for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution and for recovery of the value of the crop alleged to be stolen is maintainable 2. Whether the suit is barred under section 59 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act ; 3. Whether the certificate of the Collector (exhibit B-6) showing Gengu Reddy, who is dead, as the defaulter, does not entitle the Collector to proceed against the legal representatives of Gengu Reddy or the lessee from such legal representatives without the certificate being amended by the income-tax department 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages claimed

Ratio Decidendi: The revenue authorities were in order in proceeding with the recovery in pursuance of the certificate issued under section 46(2) of the Act and that there is no need to amend the certificate either by the income-tax authorities or by the Collector showing the legal representatives as the assessee.

Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.