RAJA JAGDISH PRATAP SAHI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 528 · Decided: 13-02-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

628 
RAJA JAGDISH PRATAP SAHi 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
February 13, 1973 
[K. S. HEGDE, P. )AGANMOHAN REDDY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] 
U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act (3 of 1948), s. 32-Suit for recovery 
of tax assessed-Maintainability. 
The appellant was assessed to Agricultural income-tax under the U.P. 
Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948, 
and was directed to pay it in four 
instalments. The appellant defaulted and, when summary proceedi:ogs to 
recover the amounts as arrears of land revenue were taken under s. 32 
of the Act, it was found that two of the instalments had become time 
barred under s. 32(2). In a suit by the respondent State for recovery of 
those amounts, the appellant contended that the only remedy open to the 
respondent was under s. 32 and that the suit was not maintainable. The 
trial court dismissed the suit, but the High Court in appeal decreed the 
suit. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : Where a taxing statute provides for a summary 
mode of 
recovery and is not exhaustive, it will be open to the State to have re-
course to any other mode open to it under the general law. 
[5320] 
Once a notice of den1and is served on the assessee 
for payment of 
tax due under the Act, and the assessee makes a default _after the date 
for payment specified therein has expired, a debt is created in favour 
of the State; and the State has the right to recover it by any of the 
modes open to it under the general law, unless, as a matter of policy 
only a specific mode to the exclusion of any other is prescribed by the 
law. 
No such prohibition is enacted in s. 32 of the Act. [531C-EJ 
Manlckam Chetiar v. Income-tax Officer. Madurai, [1938] VI l.T.R. 
180, lnder Chand v. Secretary of State, A.LR. [1942] Patna 81 and Cha· 
ganti Raghava Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.l.R. [1959] A.P. 631 
applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1192 of 
1970. 
Appeal by Certifica1e from the Judgment and order dated 
May 20, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 
161 ·Of 1960. 
Yogeshwar Prasad, Hajii Iqbal Ahmed, S. K. Bagga a.nd S. 
Bagga, for the appellant. 
S. C. Manchanda and 0. P. Rana, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. 
The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a 
suit against the appellant for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,548-62 
being two instalments of the Agricultural Income-tax due from him 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
J. P. SAHi v. U.P. STATE (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 
529 
under the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act (III of 1948) herein-
after referred to as 'the Act'). The appellant was assessed to Agri-
cultural Income-tax for the year 1359 Fasli, in a sum of Rs. 
53,097-25 and was directed to pay the same in four instalments of 
Rs. 13,274-31 each payable on December 9, 1952, Febru~ry 9, 
1953, April 9, 1953 and June 9, 1953, and accordingly the first 
instalment was recovered from him with penalty. Notice to pay 
the second and third instalments by April 21,·1953 was served on 
him but this amount was not paid. Instead, the appellant filed a 
Writ Petition in the Allahabad High Court and obtained a stay 
order which was subsequently vacated. Thereafter the State sought 
to recover the amout but the appellant filed a revision challenging 
the proceedings for recovery on the ground that they had become 
time-barred under s. 32(2) of the Act. The Board accepted the 
contention and held that no proceedings could be commenced for 
the recovery of third and fourth instalments which fell due on April 
9, 1953 and June 9, 1953, but in respect cif the proceedings for 
the recovery of the second instalment it was held that those pro-
ceedings could be continued. An application to the Board for re-
ference to the High Court was dismissed. The appellant then paid 
the second instalment. 
In view of the decision of the Board, the State of Uttar Pradesh 
filed a suit for the recovery of the amounts aforesaid in which the 
appellant pleaded that the only remedy open to the State was that 
permitted under s. 32(2) of the Act, and that no regular suit was 
maintainable. This plea was sustained, and the suit was dismissed 
as not maintainable. The High Court, however, in an appeal re-
versed the judgment of the Trial Court and decreed the suit. 
Against that judgment, this appeal is by certificate. 
It is contended before us that the only mode of recovery of 
arrears of tax or penalty due under the Act is under s. 32

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.