Vairayan Radar v. The Commissioner oj Inland Revenue
1968Present: Wijayatilake, J.S. VATRAYAN NADAR, Appellant, and THE COMMISSIONER OFINLAND REVENUE, RespondentS. G. 241 jGS, with Apiplicalion 355JGS—M. G. Galle, 50799
Income lax—Proceedings for recovery of it—Order for -payment by instalments—Permissibility.
In proceedings for the recovery of income tax due, payment by instalmcnte-mny .bo ordered if the nsscsscc has made no attempt to evade tho payment offtho tax and tho circumstances arc such that ho should be granted relief. 1
1 (IS20) 4 D. cfc Aid. 9-5 at 120.a (1042) 43 X. L. R. 241.
1 (1950) A. C. 203.* (1052) 51 X. L. R. 4C5-
6 (1053) 55 X. L. R. 514.
WlJAVATiLAXEf J. — Vairayan Nadar v. The Commissioner of Inland i65
.ApPEAL, with application in revision, from an order of theMagistrate’s Court, Gallo.
S. Ambalavanar, with C. Tittawella and ]V. H. Perera, for therespondent-appellant in the appeal and for the petitioner in theapplication.
Lalith Rodrigo, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
October 4, 1968. Wijayatelake, J.—
This is an appeal with an application in revision in rospect of an ordermade by the learned Magistrate imposing a term of six months’ simpleimprisonment for failing to pay the balance income tax duo in full.Learned Crown Counsel takos a preliminary objection to the hoaring ofthe appeal and the application in revision. Learned counsel for thoappollant concedes that there is no right of appeal but he submits thatho is entitled to pursue his application in revision. Crown Counselsubmits that even this application in revision cannot bo maintainedowing to the inordinate delay in presenting it. He relies on the caseof Tiriinanne v. Commissioner of Income Tax In my view this can bodistinguished. There is a substantial explanation for the delay intho instant case. I would therefore overrule the objection.
Mr. Ambalavanar has referred me to the proceedings before thelearned Magistrate and he submits that the Magistrate was in error whenho refused to accejjt instalments of Rs. 6,000 which tho respondent wantedto pay on 21.12.67 in respect of this case and tho two other cases eallodon this dato. He refers me to the case of de Jong v. Cotnmissioner ofIncome Tax2 which, sets out the stage at which a penalty may bo imposed.It would appear that the learned Magistrate appears to have been inclinedto send tho respondent to jail rathor than collect the arrears of taxesof which a substantial part was in fact available and which the respondentoffered to pay. Tho fact that the respondent had brought a sum ofRs. 6,000 to Court would show his good faith and in thoso circumstancesin my opinion the leamod Magistrate should not have abruptly imposodthe penalty of 6 months’ imprisonment which was to say the leastmost injudicious.
Mr. Ambalavanar states that in regard to the assessment tho matterwas at that stage under appeal and is still pending before the Commissionerof Inland Revonue .and there has beon no delay in pursuing this matteron the part of the potitioner. He also states that a sum of nearlyRs. 35,000 is availablo in doposit to the credit of this case and tho othertwo cases on today’s list subject to his appeal to tho Commissioner.
1 (1957) 59 N. L. R. 301.
*(1955) 57 N. L. R. 279.
WijAYATILAKE, j.—Hamza Naina v- Inspector oj Police, Oampaha
Ho submits that this factor merits consideration, to show that thorehas boon no attompt to evado the payment of taxes duo. In all thesocircumstancos I think this is a case in which tho petitioner should begranted relief.
I would accordingly vacato the order of the Magistrate refusing togrant payment of the taxes duo in instalments and tho ordor committingthe petitioner to imprisonment. I would make order permitting thepotitionor to pay tho taxes due in monthly instalments of Rs. 2,500 onor before the 10th of each month commencing 10th November, 1968.
S. VAIRAYAN NADAR, Appellant, and THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, Respondent