SIRIMANE, J.—Hamid v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue
1068Present:- Sirimane, J.A. R. M. HAMID, Petitioner, and COMMISSIONER OP INLAND
S. C. 603/68—Application for Revision in M. C. Colombo, 746/A
Income tax—Recovery of tax through a Magistrate's Court—Right of assessee to showthat the tax lias already been paid.■ •
Though an assessee cannot dispute the correctness of an assessment at thestage of recovery through a Magistrate’s Court, yet he can take up theposition that in fact he has paid the. amount claimed.
Application to revise an order of the Magistrate’s Court,Colombo.
M. A. Mansoor, for the Assessee-Petitioner.
K. M. M. B. Kulatunga, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
December 16, 1968. Sirimane, J.—
A certificate had been filed by the Commissioner of Inland Revenuebefore the Chief Magistrate, Colombo, that the petitioner had defaultedin payment of a sum of Rs. 54,720 as income tax due for theyear 1962-1963..
Thereafter an amended certificate had been filed reducing the sumclaimed to Rs. 3,319.
The petitioner had taken up the position that the amount he had beensummoned to pay as tax, had already been paid by him, and that he wastherefore not liable to pay ai^u-^m whatsoever. The learned Magistrate
Chelliah v. Inspector of Police, Ratnapura
had apparently been under the misconception that the petitioner wasdisputing the quantum that was claimed. His position was that he hadin fact paid the amount which he had been called upon to pay.
Though an assessee cannot dispute the correctness of an assessment atthe stage of recovery through a Magistrate’s Court, yet he can take upthe position that in fact he has paid the amount claimed.
In S. I. Mendisv. Commissioner of IncomeTax1, Sansoni, J. pointed outthat, “ A defaulter is not precluded from showing that the Magistratehas no jurisdiction, because his last known place of business or residencedoes not fall within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate : he may also• show that he has paid the tax due : or that he is not a defaulter in that he isnot the person assessed.”
The learned Magistrate has misdirected himself when he refused tohear the petitioner on the question whether or not he had actuallypaid the tax which he had been summoned to pay:
The petitioner has been fined a sum of Rs. 3,319 and a default sentenceof 3 months’ simple imprisonment has been passed on him. The learnedCrown Counsel who appeared for the Commissioner of Inland Revenuedid not seek to support the order of the Magistrate. That order isquashed and the Magistrate is directed after notice to the parties toinquire whether the petitioner has in fact paid the amount which hehas been summoned to pay.
A. R. M. HAMID, Petitioner, and COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, Respondent