HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Collector of Customs and Others v. M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull and Another
Civil Appeal Nos. 429 and 430 of 1966
[1970] 1 SCR 123 ·
Income-tax Act, 1922: section 46(5A) · Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXI rule 2
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Two-judge bench; judgment delivered by M. Hidayatullah, C.J. · M. Hidayatullah, C.J. · G. K. Mitter, J.
01 · Facts of the case
The respondent obtained decrees requiring the Union of India to refund excess customs duty. Because substantial tax remained unpaid, the Income-tax Officer served the Collector of Customs under section 46(5A); the Collector deposited the decree amounts against the respondent’s super-tax, then sought certification of satisfaction under Order XXI rule 2 (SCR pp.123-126; PDF pp.1-4).
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court treated section 46(5A) as a garnishee mechanism reaching money held for the assessee. The Union acted through its departments, super-tax was a kind of income-tax, and Order XXI rule 2 did not require voluntary payment; a legally compelled out-of-court garnishee payment could be certified (SCR pp.126-129; PDF pp.4-7).
03 · Judicial decision
The Court ordered the payment certified as adjustment of the decrees and allowed both appeals with costs in the Supreme Court and High Court.
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue and the Union of India on the validity and certification of the garnishee payment.
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: separate three questions—whether the debtor holds money for the assessee, whether the tax authority can redirect it, and how that payment is reflected in the civil decree. Recheck each step under the current statutory provisions.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete seven-page SCR report read in page-preserving text and every page image inspected.
- Exact catalogue SHA-256 and seven-page count verified; all pages were read and visually inspected.
- Identity, bench, statutory issue, reasoning and operative result were checked against the complete report.
Statutory scope
The decision concerns the repealed 1922 Act and super-tax. Its garnishee reasoning is historical and requires verification against present recovery provisions and later law.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-12. No comprehensive current-law or later-treatment 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.