RAJA YUVRAJ DUTT SINGH versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KHERI AND ORS.

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 530 · Decided: 05-05-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

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'ro-
vides 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 provi-
sions 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 appel-
lant (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 autho-
rities 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 
1

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