Case: Raja Jagdish Pratap Sahi Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh

can be taken. This section was amended by S. 21 of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953, by which the following explanation was added:"Explanation.- A proceeding for the recovery of any sum shall be deemed to have commenced within the meaning of this section, if some action is taken to recover the whole or any part of the sum within the period hereinbefore referred to, and for the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the several modes of recovery specified in this section are neither mutually exclusive, nor affect in any way any other law for the time being in force relating to the recovery of debts due to Government, and it shall be lawful for the Income-tax Officer, if for any special reasons to be recorded he so thinks fit, to have recourse to any such mode of recovery notwithstanding that the tax due is being recovered from an assessee by any other mode."It is manifest that this explanation does not in any way confer a right on the Revenue to recover arrears of tax by any mode other than those provided under that Act. That right which the State or the Revenue has for recovering arrears of tax which is a debt due to it, is a general right conferred on it under the law either by a suit or by some other method open to it. Section 32, though it does not have an Explanation analogous to S. 46 nonetheless does not preclude either specifically or by necessary implication a right to recover the arrears of tax due by a suit. The method prescribed in this section is one of the modes of recovery which is a summary remedy. It is, however, open to the State to adopt any method available to it for the recovery of tax in the same way as it would be open to it to recover ordinary debt due to it. It can institute a suit and obtain a decree with costs against the assessee or other persons liable to pay.It could also probably, without obtaining a decree or attachment, apply to a Court for the payment of dues if there are funds lying to the credit of the assessee in the Court, or it may perhaps demand payment in the hands of the receiver appointed in respect of any property of the assessee, if due notice to all the parties interested in the funds is given. On these aspects, however, we do not propose to express any views. As already observed, after an assessment is made upon the assessee quantifying the tax due from him and a demand for the payment thereof is issued within the period specified therein, it creates a debt payable by the assessee in favour of the State. It is well established that once a debt is created, 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 enhanced in S. 32 of the Act.5. Even prior to the amendment of sub-s. (7) of S. 46 of the 1922 Act, several High Courts in this country had taken this view. In Manickam Chettiar v. Income-tax Officer, Madurai, 6 ITR 180 = (AIR 1938 Mad 360) a Full Bench of the Madras High Court was dealing with the right of the Crown to obtain payment of arrears of tax due from the assessees properties sold in execution of a decree where the questions were, firstly, whether the Government was entitled to claim a priority, and secondly, whether, as a matter of procedure, the petition by the Income-tax Officer to the Civil Court for payment to him from the amounts to the credit of the assessee, was sustainable. It was contended before the Full Bench, as it is contended before us, on the analogous provisions of Section 32 of the Income-tax Act of 1922, that inasmuch as S. 46 of that Act provides modes for the recovery of income-tax, the Crown is not entitled to adopt any different method. This contention was repelled. Leach, C. J., observed at p. 185:"This section, however, does not profess to be exhaustive and it cannot without express words to that effect take away from the Crown the right of enforcing payment by any other method open to it. Therefore, I do not regard Section 46 as imposing a bar to an application of the nature of the one we are now concerned with."Varadachariar, J., had expressed a doubt as to the procedure for recovery, but he had however no doubt that the Crown had a priority for the recovery of debt due to it, and consequently agreed in favour of the view expressed by Leach, C. J. Mockett, J., also agreed with this view. This case was considered by Harris, C. J. and Chatterjee, J. of the Patna High Court in Inder Chand v. Secretary of State, AIR 1942 Pat 87 . In this case the Patna High Court was considering whether the Crown as a Creditor has the ordinary right of suit against the assessee. Following the Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court, it was held that a suit was maintainable. The contention of Mr. P. R. Das, learned counsel for the appellant, that the only method by which income-tax may be recovered is that laid down in Section 46, was repelled by Chatterjee, J. In Chaganti Raghava Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1959 Andh Pra 631 the Andhra Pradesh High Court also took a similar view. On principle as well as on the consistent view of the High Courts, it is beyond doubt that where a taxing statute provides for a summary mode of recovery and is not exhaustive, it will be open to the State to have recourse to any other mode open to it under the general law.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It is true that Section 232 of the Income-tax Act of 1961 provides that the modes of recovery under that Act are not exhaustive, but this clarification, which it is, does not imply that it is only by virtue of a specific provision that the legislature has conferred this right upon the Revenue where it did not earlier possess. Under S. 46 (2) of the Act of 1922, the Income-tax Officer may forward to the Collector a certificate under his signature specifying the amount the arrears due from an assessee, and the Collector, on receipt of such certificate, shall proceed to recover from such assessee the amount specified therein as if it were an arrear of land revenue. Sub-section (7) of the said section prescribes a period of limitation of one year from the last day of the financial year in which any demand is made under the Act, and thereafter no proceedings for the recovery can beis manifest that this explanation does not in any way confer a right on the Revenue to recover arrears of tax by any mode other than those provided under that Act. That right which the State or the Revenue has for recovering arrears of tax which is a debt due to it, is a general right conferred on it under the law either by a suit or by some other method open to it. Section 32, though it does not have an Explanation analogous to S. 46 nonetheless does not preclude either specifically or by necessary implication a right to recover the arrears of tax due by a suit. The method prescribed in this section is one of the modes of recovery which is a summary remedy. It is, however, open to the State to adopt any method available to it for the recovery of tax in the same way as it would be open to it to recover ordinary debt due to it. It can institute a suit and obtain a decree with costs against the assessee or other persons liable to pay.It could also probably, without obtaining a decree or attachment, apply to a Court for the payment of dues if there are funds lying to the credit of the assessee in the Court, or it may perhaps demand payment in the hands of the receiver appointed in respect of any property of the assessee, if due notice to all the parties interested in the funds is given. On these aspects, however, we do not propose to express any views. As already observed, after an assessment is made upon the assessee quantifying the tax due from him and a demand for the payment thereof is issued within the period specified therein, it creates a debt payable by the assessee in favour of the State. It is well established that once a debt is created, 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 enhanced in S. 32 of theJ., had expressed a doubt as to the procedure for recovery, but he had however no doubt that the Crown had a priority for the recovery of debt due to it, and consequently agreed in favour of the view expressed by Leach, C. J. Mockett, J., also agreed with this view. This case was considered by Harris, C. J. and Chatterjee, J. of the Patna High Court in Inder Chand v. Secretary of State, AIR 1942 Pat 87  . In this case the Patna High Court was considering whether the Crown as a Creditor has the ordinary right of suit against the assessee. Following the Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court, it was held that a suit was maintainable. The contention of Mr. P. R. Das, learned counsel for the appellant, that the only method by which income-tax may be recovered is that laid down in Section 46, was repelled by Chatterjee, J. In Chaganti Raghava Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1959 Andh Pra 631 the Andhra Pradesh High Court also took a similar view. On principle as well as on the consistent view of the High Courts, it is beyond doubt that where a taxing statute provides for a summary mode of recovery and is not exhaustive, it will be open to the State to have recourse to any other mode open to it under the general law.