Skip to content


Sukhvansh NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Collector and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Miscellaneous Writ No. 512 of 1975
Judge
Reported in[1980]126ITR113(All)
ActsUttar Pradesh Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1949 - Sections 19
AppellantSukhvansh NaraIn Singh and ors.
RespondentCollector and anr.
Appellant AdvocateB.D. Tripathi, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAshok Gupta, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....challenges this order on the ground that no such dues were payable by the petitioner and that no notice of demand was issued to him. from the counter-affidavit, it is apparent that the agricultural income-tax dues were payable by the father of the petitioner who was dead. under section 19 of the u.p. agricultural income-tax act, the legal representatives of an assessee are liable to pay the dues in so far as they are in receipt of the assets or properties of the deceased. the attached property originally did belong to the deceased. it is evident that the petitioners are liable to pay the demand. the notice of demand was duly served on the erstwhile asses-see. it is hence not necessary that the legal representatives must also be served with the notice of demand.2. the writ petition has.....
Judgment:

Satish Chandra, J.

1. By an order dated April 5, 1975, the respondents attached certain agricultural properties of the petitioner for recovering dues under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. The petitioner challenges this order on the ground that no such dues were payable by the petitioner and that no notice of demand was issued to him. From the counter-affidavit, it is apparent that the agricultural income-tax dues were payable by the father of the petitioner who was dead. Under section 19 of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, the legal representatives of an assessee are liable to pay the dues in so far as they are in receipt of the assets or properties of the deceased. The attached property originally did belong to the deceased. It is evident that the petitioners are liable to pay the demand. The notice of demand was duly served on the erstwhile asses-see. It is hence not necessary that the legal representatives must also be served with the notice of demand.

2. The writ petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //