Judgment Case ID: 1040

Judgment:
Appeal No. 327 of 1959. Appeal from the order dated June 28	 1956	 of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur in Misc. First Appeal No. 15 of 1954. 98 774 A. V. Viswanatha Sastri	 Shankar Anand and A. G. Batnaparkhi	 for the appellant. K. N. Rajagopal Sastri	 as amicus curiae. November 29. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH	 J. Ramachandra Dhondo Datar hereinafter referred to as the respondent was employed by the appellant company in its publications branch. By agreement dated March 23	 1943	 the appellant company agreed to pay to the respondent as from April 1	 1943	 remuneration per annum equal to 3 1/2% of the gross sales or Rs. 12	000 whichever was greater. The agreement was to remain in operation for ten years from April 1	 1943	 in the first instance and was renewable at the option of the respondent for such period as he desired. By notice dated April 19	 1948	 served on the respondent on April 22	 1948	 the appellant company terminated the employment of the respondent. The respondent then filed a civil suit in the court of the Fifth Additional District Judge	 Nagpur	 for a decree for Rs. 1	30	000 being the amount of compensation for wrongful termination of employment	 arrears of salary and interest. On July 17	 1953	 the court after giving credit for the amount received by the respondent passed a decree for Rs. 42	359 (which was inclusive of Rs. 36	000 as compensation for termination of employment and Rs. 6	000 as salary in lieu of six months notice and interest) and costs and interest on judgment. The respondent then applied for execution of the decree and claimed Rs. 54	893 12 0 less Rs. 18	501 10 0 decreed against him in a cross suit filed by the appellant company. The Income Tax Officer	 Nagpur	 served a notice under section 46 of the Indian Income Tax Act upon the respondent and also gave intimation to the District Judge	 Nagpur	 that the appellant company be permitted to deduct at source and to pay into the Government Treasury Rs. 15	95613 0 as income tax	 surcharge and super tax due on the sum of Rs. 50	972 2 0 awarded to the respondent. The appellant company also applied that the 775 executing Court do declare that the appellant company was entitled and in law bound to deduct the tax due on the amount. The learned Judge directed the appellant company to pay to the Income Tax Department Rs. 15	956 13 0 on account of income tax and super tax on the amount due to the respondent and directed it to pay the balance in court after filing a receipt for payment of tax from the Income Tax department. In appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur	 the order passed by the District Judge was reversed and execution as claimed by the respondent was directed. The appellant company contends that under section 18(2) of the Income Tax Act	 it was bound to deduct the tax computed at the appropriate rate on the salary payable to the respondent as the amount due under the decree represented salary. Section 18 sub section (2) of the Income Tax Act in so far as it is material provides that any person paying any amount chargeable under the head "salaries" shall at the time of payment deduct income tax and super tax at the rate representing the average of the rates applicable to the estimated total income of the assessee under the head "salary". Sub section (7) declares that a person failing to deduct the taxes required by the section shall be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax. The Legislature has	 it is manifest	 imposed upon the employer the duty to deduct tax at the appropriate rate on salary payable to the employee and if he fails to do so	 the tax not deducted may be recovered from him. But the liability to deduct arises in law	 if the amount is due and payable as salary. In this case	 there has been no assessment of tax due by the Income Tax Officer on the amount payable to the respondent. Under section 46(5)	 any person paying salary to an assessee may be required by the Income Tax Officer to deduct arrears of tax due from the latter and the employer is bound to comply with such a requisition and to pay the amount deducted to the credit of the Government. But this order can only be passed if income tax has been assessed and has remained unpaid. It is undisputed that at the	 material 776 time	 no tax was assessed against the respondent; the Income Tax Officer had accordingly no authority to issue a notice under section 46(5). Nor could the Income Tax Officer claim to recover tax due by a proceeding in the nature of a garnishee proceeding by applying to the civil court to attach the Judgment debt payable by the company. The application submitted by the Income Tax Officer must therefore be ignored. Undoubtedly	 the employer is by section 18 of the Act liable to deduct from the salary payable by him to his employee the amount of tax at the average rate appli cable to the estimated total income; but can it be said that as between the appellant company and the respondent the decretal amount represented salary? The respondent had filed a suit for a decree for arrears of salary	 compensation for wrongful termination of employment and interest. The court having passed a decree on that claim	 it became a judgment debt. It may have been open to the appellant company in the suit to apply to the court for making a provision in the decree for payment of income tax due by the respondent	 but no such provision was made. We are not concerned to decide in this appeal whether in the hands of the respondent the amount due to him under the decree	 when paid	 will be liable to tax; that question does not fall to be determined in this appeal. The question to be determined is whether as between the appellant company and the respondent the amount decreed is due as salary payment of which attracts the statutory liability imposed by section 18. The claim decreed by the civil court was for compen sation	 for wrongful termination of employment	 arrears of salary	 salary due for the period of notice and interest and costs	 less withdrawals on salary account. The amount for which execution was sought to be levied was the amount decreed against which was set off the claim under the cross decree. A substantial part of the claim decreed represented compensation fir wrongful termination of employment and it would be difficult to predicate of the claim sought to be enforced what part thereof if any represented salary due. Granting that compensation payable to an 777 employee by an employer for wrongful termination of employment be regarded as in the nature of salary	 when the claim is merged in the decree of the court	 ' the claim assumes the character of a judgment debt and to judgment debts section 18 has not been made applicable. The decree passed by the civil court must be executed subject to the deductions and adjustments permissible under the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment debtor may	 if he has a cross decree for money	 claim to set off the amount due thereunder. If there be any adjustment of the decree	 the decree may be executed for the amount due as a result of the adjustment. A third person who has obtained a decree against the judgment creditor may apply for attachment of the decree and such decree may be executed subject to the claim of the third person: but the judgment debtor cannot claim to satisfy	 in the absence of a direction in the decree to that effect the claim of a third person against the judgment creditor	 and pay only the balance. The rule that the decree must be executed according to its tenor may be modified by a statutory provision. But there is nothing in the Income Tax Act which supports the plea that in respect of the amount payable under a judgment debt of the nature sought to be enforced	 the debtor is entitled to deduct income tax which may become due and payable by the judgment creditor on the plea that the cause of action on which the decree was passed was the contract of employment and a part of the claim decreed represented amount due to the employee as salary or damages in lieu of salary. Counsel for the appellant company strongly relied upon the decision of the House of Lords in Westminster Bank Ltd. vs Riches (1). That was a case in which in an action brought by one R against the Westminster Bank trustee of the estate of one X R was awarded a decree for pound 36	255 principal and pound 10	028 as interest. The Bank thereafter brought an action for a declaration that it had satisfied the judg ment in the action by R by paying him the amount (1) 18 Tax Cases 159. 778 due less pound 5	014	 the latter sum representing income tax on the interest awarded by the judgment. It was held by the House of Lords that pound 10	028 was "interest of money" within Schedule D and General Rule 21 of the Income Tax Act	 1918	 and that income tax was deductible therefrom. In that case	 the only argument advanced on behalf of the Bank is set out in the speech of Viscount Simon	 L. C. at p. 187: "The appellant contends that the additional sum of pound 10	028 though awarded under a power to add interest to the amount of the debt	 and though called interest in the judgment	 is not really interest such as attracts Income Tax	 but is damages. The short answer to this is that there is no essential incompatibility between the two conceptions. The real question	 for the purposes of deciding whether the Income Tax Acts apply	 is whether the added sum is capital or income	 not whether the sum is damages or interest." The House of Lords in that case by a majority held that pound 10	028 awarded under the judgment represented not capital but interest and was liable to tax. In our view	 ' this case has no application to the facts of the present case. In the case before us	 there is a decree passed in favour of the respondent: under the scheme of the Civil Procedure Code	 that decree has to be executed as it stands	 subject to such deductions or adjustments as are permissible under the Code. There was no tax liability which the respondent was assessed to pay in respect of this amount till the date on which the appellant company sought to satisfy the alleged tax liability of the respondent. As between the appellant company and the respondent	 the amount did not represent salary; it represented a judgment debt and for payment of income tax thereon	 no provision was made in the decree. The Civil Procedure Code bars an action of the nature which was filed in Westminster Bank 's case (supra). The defence to the execution if any must be raised in the execution proceeding and not by a separate action. The amount payable by the appellant company to the respondent was not salary but a judgment debt	 and before paying that debt the appellant company could not claim 779 to deduct at source tax payable by the respondent. Nor could the appellant company seek to justify its plea on the ground that the judgment creditor was indebted to a third person. The principle of the case in Manickam Chettiar vs Income Tax Officer	 Madura (1)	 on which reliance was also sought to be placed by the appellant company has no application to this case. In Manickam Chettiar 's case (1)	 in execution of a money decree certain properties belonging to a judgment debtor were attached and sold and the sale proceeds were received by the court. The Income Tax Officer who had assessed the decree holder to tax payable by him on his other income applied to the court for an order directing payment to him out of the sale proceeds the amount of income tax due by the decree holder. It was held that the claim for income tax was entitled to priority in payment and the court had inherent power to make an order on the application for payment of money due as income tax. Tax had admittedly been assessed	 and proceedings substantially for recovery of the tax so assessed were adopted by the Income Tax Officer. It was held in the circumstances that the court had jurisdiction to direct recovery of tax out of the amount standing to the credit of the decree holder. The principle of that case can have no application to the facts of the present case. The respondent had not appeared before us	 but we have been assisted by Mr. Rajagopala Sastri and we are indebted to him for placing the evidence and the various aspects of the case on a true appreciation of which the question in issue fell to be determined. The appeal fails and is dismissed. As there was no appearance for the respondent	 there will be no order for costs. Appeal dismissed. (1) VI I.T. R. 180.

Summary:
In a civil suit the respondent obtained a decree against his employer the appellant company for a sum which included com pensation for wrongful termination of his service	 arrears of salary	 interest and costs of the suit	 and then applied for execution of the decree. The Income tax Officer served a notice upon the respondent under section 46 of the Indian Income tax Act and applied to the District Judge that the appellant be permitted to deduct at source the income tax	 surcharge and super tax on the sum awarded to the respondent and pay the same in the Government Treasury. The appellant company also moved the executing court for a declaration that they were entitled and bound to deduct the tax due on the amount. The District judge directed the appellant company to pay the income tax and super tax to the Income Tax Department and pay the balance in Court together with a receipt for the income tax paid. In appeal the High Court reversed the order of the District judge and directed the execution of the decree as claimed by the respondent. On appeal by the appellant company	 Held	 that as no tax was assessed against the respondent the Income Tax Officer could not issue a notice under section 46(5) requiring the appellant company to deduct tax from the decretal amount. A substantial part of the decretal amount did not represent salary" of the respondent: it consisted of compensation for wrongful termination of the respondent 's service	 salary in lieu of six months ' notice	 interest and costs of the suit. It was a judgment debt and no provision for payment of income tax was made in the decree which was liable to be executed as prayed by the respondent. The appellant company was not therefore entitled or bound to deduct income tax under section 18 sub section (2) of the Act.