HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Kapurchand Shrimal v. Tax Recovery Officer, Hyderabad & Others
Civil Appeals Nos. 1319 and 1320 of 1966; Writ Petition No. 103 of 1966
[1969] 1 SCR 691 ·
Income-tax Act, 1961: sections 2(7), 160, 161, 179, 222, 276, 276A, 277 and 278; Second Schedule rules 2, 73 and 76
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by J. C. Shah, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · V. Ramaswami, J. · A. N. Grover, J.
Assessment years: 1955-56 to 1959-60
01 · Facts of the case
A tax certificate was issued against an HUF for five years. The Tax Recovery Officer ordered its karta detained in civil prison. The High Court rejected his challenge and later invoked constructive res judicata; he appealed and also petitioned under Article 32 (SCR pp.691-694; PDF pp.1-4).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The HUF was the distinct assessed entity. A karta could represent it but was not thereby deemed the assessee for section 222 or the recovery rules. No provision made him personally liable, exposed his separate property or permitted arrest for the family's default. Penal provisions targeted individuals responsible for specified acts, not status alone (SCR pp.694-697; PDF pp.4-7).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The detention order was declared unauthorized and the appeals were allowed; costs were awarded in one appeal, with no costs in the other appeal or petition (SCR p.697; PDF p.7).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the karta: he could not be imprisoned merely because the HUF failed to pay its assessed tax (SCR pp.695-697; PDF pp.5-7).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: recovery must target the statutorily liable assessee or an expressly designated representative; managerial status alone does not create personal civil-detention liability. Verify current definitions, representative-assessment rules and recovery procedure before reliance (based on SCR pp.694-697; PDF pp.4-7).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 7-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; adjacent-report boundaries were checked.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and seven-page count match catalogue asset 1969_1_691_697; every page was read and visually inspected.
- The source verifies the stated case identity, bench, statutory issue and operative order.
- No exact source-hash, asset-ID, SCR-citation, docket or same-judgment match was found in the published corpus or reviewed archive.
Statutory scope
The decision construes the Income-tax Act, 1961 as it stood in 1968 and historical Second Schedule recovery rules; amendments and current recovery powers were not checked.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-11. Later judicial treatment and current statutory applicability have not been comprehensively checked; no current-law or citator clearance is represented.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.