# RAJA YUVRAJ DU1T SINGH v. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KHERI AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1971] 1 S.C.R. 530
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 743 and 7 44 of 1968
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, K. S. Hegde, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/raja-yuvraj-du1t-singh-v-the-deputy-commissioner-kheri-and-ors-5093
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

U.P. Agricultural income-tax Act (U.P. 3 of 1949) s. 32(2)-Pro;
ceeding for recovery of arrears--When co1nnience.
Sectwn .12(2) of the U.P. Agriculturnl Income-tax Act, 1949 μ'rovides that no proceeding for recovery 01: any sum payable under the Act,
B
shall be commenced after the expiration of one year from the date on
C
which the last instalment falls due.
The a&sessee was assessed to agricultural income-tax under Act, for
different assessment years.
As the a5sessee defaulted in the payments
the assessing authority made orders directing the Tahsildar to realise the
sums as arrears of ·land revenue.
All these ord•ers except o~e V.'ere made
within a year of the last date for the payment of the inst'aln1ents Jue.
r
But the Tahsildar issued the recovery orders after the' expiry of one year
I>
vf the last date for the payment of the instalments due.
On the question,
·.vhcther the proceedings for recovery \Vere barred by tin1e, this Court.
HELD : The proceedings were not barred by time except the one in
which the order of the assessing aufhority directing the Collector to realise
the· sum was made beyond one year from the date the
la~r instalment
fell due.
The proceedings fox recovery commence with the making of the
request by the assessing authority to the Collector for recov•ry of the
arrears as an arrear of land revenue.
There is hardly any difference
between the provisions of s, 32 of the Act and the corresponding provisions of s, 46 of the Income-tax Act, 1922,
Both these statutes relate
to taxation Qf income and the provisions in question are in pari tnateria
although the words employed may not be exactly the same. [533 D]
Lal Blum Pratap Narain Bahadur Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another; (1962) Vol. 60 All. L.J, 358; Kishorilal v. Triloki Nath, (1962)
Vol. 60 All. L.J. 360, distinguished.

## Text

530
RAJA YUVRAJ DU1T SINGH
v.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KHERI AND ORS.
May 5,. 1970
[J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J
U.P. Agricultural income-tax Act (U.P. 3 of 1949) s. 32(2)-Pro;
ceeding for recovery of arrears--When co1nnience.
Sectwn .12(2) of the U.P. Agriculturnl Income-tax Act, 1949 μ'rovides that no proceeding for recovery 01: any sum payable under the Act,
B
shall be commenced after the expiration of one year from the date on
C
which the last instalment falls due.
The a&sessee was assessed to agricultural income-tax under Act, for
different assessment years.
As the a5sessee defaulted in the payments
the assessing authority made orders directing the Tahsildar to realise the
sums as arrears of ·land revenue.
All these ord•ers except o~e V.'ere made
within a year of the last date for the payment of the inst'aln1ents Jue.
r
But the Tahsildar issued the recovery orders after the' expiry of one year
I>
vf the last date for the payment of the instalments due.
On the question,
·.vhcther the proceedings for recovery \Vere barred by tin1e, this Court.
HELD : The proceedings were not barred by time except the one in
which the order of the assessing aufhority directing the Collector to realise
the· sum was made beyond one year from the date the
la~r instalment
fell due.
The proceedings fox recovery commence with the making of the
request by the assessing authority to the Collector for recov•ry of the
arrears as an arrear of land revenue.
There is hardly any difference
between the provisions of s, 32 of the Act and the corresponding provisions of s, 46 of the Income-tax Act, 1922,
Both these statutes relate
to taxation Qf income and the provisions in question are in pari tnateria
although the words employed may not be exactly the same. [533 D]
Lal Blum Pratap Narain Bahadur Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another; (1962) Vol. 60 All. L.J, 358; Kishorilal v. Triloki Nath, (1962)
Vol. 60 All. L.J. 360, distinguished.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
Civil Appeals Nos. 743
and 7 44 of 1968.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated August 8, 1967
of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Special Appeal
No. 84 of 1965.
S. c. Manchanda, N. N. Sharma, and C. P. Lal, for the appellant (in C.A. No. 743 of 1968) and the respondent (in C.A.
No. 744 of 1968).
N. D. Karkhanis and 0. P. Rana, for the respondents (i!ll C.A.
No. 743 of 1968) and the appellants (in C.A. No. 744 of 1968).
E
F
G
H
{~:
,.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAJA YUVRAJ v. DY. COMMR. (Grover, I.)
531
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Grover, J. These cross appeals arise out of a judgment of
the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court by which the
petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by the assessee
were partly allowed.
The assessee was assessed to agricultural income tax under
the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, Act III of 1949 hereina.fter
referred to as the "Act" for the years 1360 Fasli (July 1, 1952
to June 30, 1953), 1361 Fasli (July 1, 1953 to June 30, 1954),
1362 Fasli (July 1, 1954 to June 30, 1955), 1363 Fasli (July l,
1955 to June 30, 1956).
The assessment orders relating to
the first two years were made on November 23, 1959 and in
respect ot the subsequent years they were made on October 21,
1959 and August 13, 1957 respectively.
It appears that certain
penalties were also imposed.
As the assessee made default in
payment of the amount of tax and penalty, proceedings were· taken
against hjm for the realization thereof and attachment orders were
issued by the Tehsildar on March 10, 1962. On May 21, 1962
the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court praying that
all coercive processes for the realization of the taxes and the
penalties including the sale of land attached be quashed.
A
learned single judge allowed the petitions and granted the relief
claimed with regard to the assessments relating to all the years
on the ground that proceedings for recovery had not commenced
within the time prescribed by the Act.
The departmencal authorities preferred a Special Appeal to a Division Bench and during
the pendency of the appeal sought to produce additional evidence
to show that the proceedings relating to recovery had commenced
within time.
The Division Bench admitted additional evidence
and after taking that into consideration held that proceeding&
were not barred in respect of the demand relating to the years
1360F to 1362F.
It was, however, found that proceedings for
recovery of tax and penalty for the year l 363F were barred by
time.
The assessee as also the Deputy Commissioner, Kheri,
have preferred appeals challenging that part of the order which
has gone against them.
Section 30 of the Act provides that tax for any year is payable
in two equal instalments. The first instalment has to
b~ paid
within one month of the service of the notice of demand or communication of the order and the second instalment within six
months from the due date of the first instalment.
Section 32 is
in the following terms :-
" (I ) The Collector may, on the motion of the
assessing authority recover any sum imposed by way
of penalty under the provisions of sections 17, 31, 37,
'---
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] l S.C.R
or, where any assessee is in default the amount assessed
as agricultural income-tax, as if it were an arrear of
land reve~ue.
( 2) No proceeding for the recovery of any sum
paya!:Jle under this Act shall be commenced after the
expiration of one year .from the date on which the last
instalment fixed under section 30 falls due :
Provided .................... "
It was common ground before the High Court and has not been
disprted before us that the date of last instalment for the years
1360F to 1362F was June 28, 1960. The date of last instalmc'lt
for the year 1363F was September 19, 1958.
The order of
at~achment having been made on March 10, 1962 was clearly
beyond one year from June 28, 1960 and September 19, 1958.
The. question which arose was whether the recovery proceedings
were commenced before March 10, 1962.
According to the
ass.:ssee 'the recovery proceedings commenced only when the
attachment was effected and not earlier and that they could be
said to commence only when some actual process was issued unde.r
the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition ~nd Land .Reforms
Act, 1950, Act I of 195L
Now as regards the years 1360F and 1361F the evidence
which was admitted by the Division Bench showed that the Deputy
Commissioner, who was the assessing authority. had made orders
directing the Tehsildar to realize various sums as arrears of land
revenue.
Thus, according to the High Court, the proceedings for
recovery commenced with the making of these orders, ( Annexures
A-1 to A-5). h was pointed out that these orders were made on
various dates ranging between October 9, 1960 to December 2,
1960.
These dates were within one year from June 28, 1960
which was the last date of instalment for the years 13 60F and
1361F.
The question which falls for determination is whether proceedings can be said to commence for recovery when the assessing
authoritv makes a motion within s. 32(1) to the Collector for
recovery of the agricultural income tax and penalty as an arrear
of land revenue.
The Allahabad High Court has consistently
b.eld that proceedings for recovery of tax under the Act should
be deemed to commence from the date of the request made by
the assessing authority under the Act to the Collector to take steps
for realization of the arrears of tax and other dues; (see Lal Bhan
Pratap Narain Bahadur Pal
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh &
Another('). This view is based on various decisions under the
Indian Income tax Act, 1922. Section 46(7) of t_hat Act provid-
(1) (1962) Vol. 60 All. LL J. 358.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAJA YUVRAJ v. DY. COMMR. (Grover, !.)
53:l
ed that no proceedings for the recovery of any sum payable under
that Act could be. commenced after the expiration of one year
from the last day of the financial year in which the demand was:
made under that Act.
Under s. 46(2) the Income tax Officer
was empowered to forward to the Collector a certificate specifying
the amount of arrears due from an assessee, and the Collector on
receipt of such certificate had to proceed to recover from such
assessee the amount specified therein as if it were an arrear of
land revenue.
This provision together with s. 46 ( 7) came up
for consideration in a number of c~ses before the High Courts and
there appears to be unanimity of opinion that when the certificate
is forwarded by the Income tax Officer to the Collector for recovery of the dues the recovery proceedings commence from that
point of time.
Some of these have been referred to in Kishorilal
v. Tirloki Nath(') and it is pointless to refer to them again.
In our judgment there is hardly much difference between the
provisions of s. 32 of the Act and the corresponding provisions
of s. 46 of the Income tax Act 1922.
Both these statutes relate
to taxation of income and the provisions in question are in parl
materia
although the words employed may not be exactly the
same.
The proceedings for recovery, therefore, in the present
case, were rightly held to have commepced with the making of the
orders contained in annexures A-1 to A-5.
As regards the assessment for the year 1362F it has been
pointed out on behalf of the assessee that the original orders passed
for taking proceedings for realization of tax were missing from
the record.
The High Court, however, relied on the entries of
the registers of demand and col!ectio;n and was satisfied that "some
order for reali;zation of tax for
1362F was received by the
Tehsi!dar of Lakhimpur in July or August 1960". That date
being within one year from June 28, 1960 the recovery proceedings were held to be within time. It appears that the departmental authorities did not produce satisfactory evidence relating
to the making of orders for realization of the tax in· respect of the
year 1362F inasmuch as the original orders were not produced.
The learned judges of the High Court, as .stated before, saw the
register and after examination of the entries therein were satisfied
that an order had been made for realization of tax within one
year from June 28, 1960.
We would be most reluctant to interfere with that finding.
So far as the year 1363F was concerned
the date of last instalment was September 19, 1958. According
to annexure A-5 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lakhimpur, made an
order on October 1, 1959 with regard to the demand for that year.
The High Court found that the Deputy Commissioner had made
(I) (1962) Vol. 60 All. L.J. 360.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 1 S.C.R.
an endorsement on October 5, 1959. As the order was made on
October 1, 1959 it was beyond one year from September 19,
1958.
In the appeal filed by the departmental authorities it has
not been shown in what manner the High Court was in error in
holding that the proceedings for recovery of tax and penalty for
the year 1363F were barred by time.
In t~e result both appeals fail and are dismissed.
In view of
the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence produced with regard
to the year 1362F by the departmental authorities we make no
order as to costs in the appeal filed by the assessee.
The asses~ee,
shall, however, be entitled to his costs in the appeal filed by the
departmental authorities.
Y.P.
Appeals dismissed.
A
B