024-SLLR-SLLR-1990-V-1-EMMANUEL-V.THE-COMMISSIONER-GENERAL-OF-INLAND-REVENUE.pdf
CA
Emmanuel v. The Commissioner-General of Inland Revenue
209
EMMANUEL
v.
THE COMMISSIONER-GENERAL OF INLAND REVENUE
COURT OF APPEAL
S. N. SILVA. J. AND, D. P. S. GUNASEKERA. J
A. APPLICATION No. 390/90-
C. COLOMBO No. 37090/TAX
INCOME TAX-ORDER VARYING INSTALMENTS ALREADY ORDERED
Once the Court orders instalments in an application tor recovery of taxes due on theCommissioner-General's certificate, it would be an error in Law to alter the quantum ofinstalments without any application being made by the Commissioner-General of InlandRevenue and without any proof of altered circumstances.
APPLICATION in Revision of the order of the District Court of Colombo
Mahinda Ralapanawe for petitioner
210
Sri Lanka Law Reports
(193C] ! Sri L.R.
May 11, 1990S. N. SILVA, J.
We have heard Counsel in support ol this application. The Petitioner hasfiled the application in Revision in respect of the orderdated 30.04.1990.made by the learned Additional District Judge of Colombo. Proceedingsin this case commenced before the District Court of Colombo for recoveryof taxes due on the certificate dated 06.05.1988 which is producedmarked as "X1". The Petitioner was granted an adjournment in view of anappeal that had been filed put that there was no variation in the sum thatwas due. Thereafter the petitioner admitted liability on 10.10.89 and thelearned Additional District Judge imposed the said sum due as a fine andsentenced the petitioner to a term of 6 months simple Imprisonment indefault of the payment of the fine. The learned Additional District Judgepermitted the petitioner to pay the sum in instalments of Rs. 3.000/- permonth. These instalmentswere paid on 16.11.89.08.01.90 and 30.04.90.On the last date that is mentioned the learned Additional District Judgedirected that the next instalment should be a sum of Rs 10,000/=.Counsel submits that no application was made by the Commissioner-General of Inland Revenue to enhance the instalment and that no inquirywas made asto whethertherewere altered circumstances that warrantedthe recovery of a higher instalment. It is also submitted that there were noproceedings other than what is reflected in the journal entry dated30.4.1990. In the circumstances we are of the view that the learnedAdditional District Judge erred in law in altering the instalment that hadalready been ordered without any application being made by theCommissioner-General of Inland Revenue and without proof of anyaltered circumstance. We accordingly act in revision and set aside theorder of the learned Additional District Judge that directed the petitionerto pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/= on 31.05.90. We substitute in that place anorder directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/= on 31.05.1990and direct him to pay the sum out standing in instalments of Rs. 3,000/=per month on dates that will be fixed by the learned Additional DisirictJudge. The application is allowed.
D. P. S. GUNASEKERA, j — I agree.Application allowed.