Balachandra Chengappa Vs. Union of India and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]sections 168 & 173; [ram mohan reddy, j] compensation appeal against - claimant was an in-patient in the hospital for 13 days non-examination of the doctor who treated the claimant at the general hospital - uncorroborated medical certificate which certifies that the claimant sustained fractures of the 6th, 7th and 8th ribs held, tribunal fell in serious error and occasioned grave injustice to the appellant in not properly appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary before concluding that the claimant suffered from fractures of the 6th, 7th and 8th ribs in the accident that occurred. thus it goes without saying that disability cannot be believed and is unacceptable. compensation of rs. 1,49,000/- awarded by tribunal was reduced to rs. 20,000/- with interest at 8 & p.a. - the petitioner's allegations that the promissory note had been endorsed n favour of the department, was also denied.a.r. somnath iyer, j.(1) in this writ petition, the petitioner whose income was assessed by the income-tax authorities, owed a sum of rs. 18,783-75 np. towards the arrears of tax, and, the parupathegar of the nad office, coorg, who is respondent 3 called upon him on april 14, 1965, to pay up the arrears and intimated him that in default, his landed property would be attached and sold. this notice was issued after the income-tax officer had forwarded to the concerned revenue authority a certificate under section 46(2) of the indian income-tax act, 1922.(2) the petitioner challenges this demand and the ground on which the challenge rests is that as early as on september 11, 1958, a promissory note for rs. 1,00,000 executed by the petitioner's debtors had been delivered to the income-tax officer for collection and appropriation towards the arrears of the tax due from him, and that the neglect on the part of the income-tax officer to make the collection of the debt, exonerated the petitioner from his liability to pay the arrears of tax.(3) in the counter-affidavit produced on behalf of the income-tax officer, it was denied that the petitioner handed over any promissory note to the income-tax department. the petitioner's allegations that the promissory note had been endorsed n favour of the department, was also denied. it was explained that a promissory note was sent by post by the petitioner to the income-tax department and that the department was prepared to return it to the petitioner.(4) it is seen from the papers produced before us that when the concerned officer of the income-tax department made a demand for the payment of the amount due under the promissory note, under section 46(5a) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, to which we shall refer as the act, the debtor to whom a notice was issued for that purpose, repudiated his liability under the promissory note. the maker of the note denied that he had received any consideration. it is seen that although the income-tax officer made yet another demand, he did not succeed in recovering any part of the amount to which the promissory note related.(5) it is plain that although under section 46(5a) of the act, the income-tax officer had the power to call upon the debtor of the petitioner to make the payment of a debt due to the petitioner towards the petitioner's arrears of income--tax, the income-tax officer did not become the agent of the petitioner for the recovery or collection of the debt due to him. section 46 (5a) is an enabling section which creates a machinery for the recovery of the income-tax arrears from a person who is indebted to the assessee. paragraph 2 of that sub-section makes it clear that the income-tax officer may abandon the endeavour to recover the arrears in that way at his choice and the last paragraph of that sub-section provides that when a person who is called upon by the income-tax officer to pay a debt of the assessee, repudiates the debt, the income-tax officer can do nothing further in the matter.(6) that being the true position, the income-tax officer could not take any further steps for the recovery of the debt which was not admitted by the maker of the promissory note. so, the delivery of the promissory note to the income-tax officer and its endorsement, even if true, did not and could not result in the extinction of the petitioner's liability to pay the arrears of tax.(7) but mr. nanjappa appearing for the petitioner contends that a certificate of clearance granted to the petitioner by the concerned income-tax officer on january 12, 1960, discharged the petitioner. it is plain that it did not: for, that certificate stated no more than that the petitioner was doing everything possible to pay the tax demanded promptly and regularly. it did not state that the arrears of tax due from him had been paid.(8) we, therefore, dismiss this writ petition.(9) no costs (10) petition dismissed.