Skip to content


S. Rm. Sathappa Chettiar, Pollachi Vs. the Additional Income-tax Officer, Coimbatore and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 145 of 1960
Judge
Reported inAIR1961Mad104; [1960]40ITR338(Mad); (1961)1MLJ165
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226; Income-tax Act, 1922 - Sections 46
AppellantS. Rm. Sathappa Chettiar, Pollachi
RespondentThe Additional Income-tax Officer, Coimbatore and anr.
Advocates:T.S. Rangarajan, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredState of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta
Excerpt:
- .....seeks to obtain in this proceeding is only an interlocutory order to stay the sale of his properties for realisation of tax. apart from the fact that this remedy could be obtained in the proceeding now pending before the income-tax bench of this court, the remedy that is sought by this proceeding is really an interlocutory one. the petition is therefore dismissed.
Judgment:
ORDER

Ganapatia Pillai, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is taken out for the purpose of staying the sale of the properties belonging to the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act for the purpose of collecting the Income-tax due by the petitioner, and, to quash the proceedings of the District Collector, Coimbatore, in regard thereto.

2. This petitioner filed an application in this court under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, against the decision of the Income-tax Tribunal which upheld the assessment. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no order for stay could be obtained in that proceeding and that therefore the petitioner had no adequate alternative remedy. In support of that contention he relies on the decision of the Andhra High Court in Narayana Rao v. Commr. of Income-tax, Hyderabad : [1956]29ITR222(AP) .

The Bench in that case held that in a proper case the High Court has power under Section 151, C. P, C. and, under Article 227 of the Constitution to issue an order for stay of collection of income-tax arrears. The Bench further held that Section 66(7) of the Indian Income-tax Act did not limit the scope of such powers. On the facts of that case they declined to grant a stay because the only reason put forward was the inability of the petitioner to pay the tax.

During the course of that judgment the Bench relied upon a passage from the judgment of Rajamannar, C. J. in Pattisam, In re : AIR1954Mad573 . The learned Chief Justice there, held that Article 226 of the Constitution could not be invoked for the sole purpose of obtaining an interlocutory order. As authority for this position the learned Judge relied upon the Supreme Court decision in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta : [1952]1SCR28 .

3. What the petitioner seeks to obtain in this proceeding is only an interlocutory order to stay the sale of his properties for realisation of tax. Apart from the fact that this remedy could be obtained in the proceeding now pending before the Income-tax Bench of this court, the remedy that is sought by this proceeding is really an interlocutory one. The petition is therefore dismissed.


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