http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: PADRAUNA RAJKRISHNA SUGAR WORKS LTD. & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LAND REFORMS   COMMISSIONER, U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/01/1969

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. RAMASWAMI, V. GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1969 AIR  897            1969 SCR  (3) 468  1969 SCC  (1) 485

ACT: U.P.  Zamindari  Abolition  & Land Reforms Act  (U.P.  1  of 1951), ss. 279 and 286-Dues under other statutes recoverable as  arrears of land revenue-Whether restrictions  under  ss. 279 and 286(1) applicable.

HEADNOTE: The amount of dues under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 the U.P. Sugar Factories Control Act. 1938 and the  Co-operative Societies  Act,  1912 were recoverable as  arrears  of  land revenue.   Section 286(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition  & Land  Reforms  Act  provides that if  any  arrears  of  land revenue  could  not  be recovered by any  of  the  processes mentioned  in cls. (a) to (e) of s. 279, the  Collector  may realise the same by attachment and sale of the interests  of the  defaulter  in  any  other  immovable  property  of  the defaulter, and s. 286(2) provided that money recoverable  as arrears  of I" revenue, may be recovered by  process  "under this section" from any immovable property of the  defaulter. As the appellant company was unable to meet its  liabilities in respect of income-tax dues, sugar cess and the amount due for  cane  supplied  to it, the immovable  property  of  the company were sold to meet the dues.  The appelant challenged the  sale  contending that (i) the immovable  prop"  of  the company would be attached and sold only after the  processes prescribed  in cls. (a) to (a) of a. 279 ie. by the  age  of movable  properties  were  resorted to; (ii)  the  sale  was illegal or irregular as the Collector ignored the intimation of  the Income-tax Officer staying the sale for recovery  of income-tax;  and  (iii)  the appellant  was  prevented  from raising funds for making the deposit as provided by r.  285H (of  the rules framed under the Act) for setting  aside  the sale  as  the  purchaser was  appointed  as  the  Authorised Controller  and put in possession of all the  properties  of the appellant.  Dismissing the appeal this Court, HELD  : (i) Power to recover arrears of land revenue from  a defaulter is governed by the processes mentioned in cls. (a) to  (e)  of s. 279 of the Act and s. 286(1)  places  certain restrictions upon the power of the Collector to recover land revenue  by  attachment  and sale of lands  other  than  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

holding  in respect of which the land revenue is  due.   But the restrictions on the power of the Collector operated only when land revenue is in arrears.  Restrictions, if any, upon the p ower of the Collector to recover dues under  statutes, as arrears of land revenue arise, from the statute which  is the source of the liability and not from the U.P.  Zamindari Abolition  &  Land Reforms Act, which merely  sets  out  the processes for recovery of the dues.  To hold that sub-s. (2) of  s. 286 requires the Collector in the first  instance  to recover  out  of  the  movable property  or  by  arrest  and detention of the defaulter before immovable property of  the defaulter  is attached and sold is to amend the  substantive provisions  of the Acts under which the liability for  money due is recoverable as land revenue.  For instance, under  a. 46  of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the powers  exercisable  by the Collector in recovering arrears of income-tax, which are recoverable as arrears of land revenue are not restricted to the Land Revenue Code; the Collector is entitled to exercise all the powers of’ a Civil Court for the purpose of recovery of  an  amount due under a decree under the  Code  of  Civil Procedure, an the Code, of Civil procedure im-                             469 poses no obligations to recover the dues by sale of movables or by arrest and detention of the defaulter before immovable property  may be attached. The provisions of the Act,  which authorise  recovery  of  sums of money as  arrears  of  land revenue, do not require the Collector to follow any sequence of  the  processes  for recovery; it  is  competent  to  the Collector  to resort to any process prescribed by s. 279  in aid of recovery of the dues which are recoverable as arrears of land revenue, [473 H-474 D; 475 H] (ii) The  sale was not illegal or irregular for  the  reason that the Collector ignored the intimation of the  Income-tax Officer  staying the sale for recovery of  income-tax  dues. The  immovable property could have been put up for sale  for recovery  of sugar cane cess and the cane price  which  were many times more than the income-tax dues. [476 G] (iii)     There  was  no force in the  contention  that  the appellant  was  unable to raise funds and make  the  deposit under  r.  285H  because the  purchaser  was  appointed  the Authorised  Controller,  who  took  possession  of  all  the properties  of the Company.  The appellant could not  comply with the provision of r. 285H for having the sale set  aside as the movables were not sufficient to enable the  appellant to raise the amount required for deposit under r. 285H. [476 H]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1966. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 13,  1961 of  the  Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.  217  of 1958. C.   K.  Daphtary, B. Sen, J, P, Goyal and A. Banerjee,  for the appellants. C.   B. Agarwala and O. P. Rana, for respondents Nos. 1,  2, 3 and 8. T.   A. Ramachandran and R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No. 4. M.   C.  Chagla, G. D. Srivastava, B. Datta and J. B.  Pada- chanji, for respondents Nos. 5 and 6. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. The Padrauna Rajkrishna Sugar Works Ltd.hereinafter called  ’the Company carried on the business of  manufacture

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

and  sale of sugar and supply of electricity.   The  Company was in financial difficulties in 1954 and was unable to meet its  obligations.  The principal liabilities of the  Company in   July  1955  were  Rs.  81,821-2-0  due  as   income-tax provisionally  assessed for the assessment year  1952-53  in respect  of  which an order for recovery was made  under  s. 46(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922; Rs. 5,64,301-14-9 due  as sugarcane  cess under s. 29 of the Sugar  Factories  Control Act,  1938,  for  the years 1952-53  to,  1954-55:  and  Rs. 1,92,053-12-3  due  by  the  Company  to  the   Co-operative Development Union Ltd. as arrears of cane price for the year 1954-55. 470 By  order  dated July 14, 1954, issued under  the  Essential Supplies  (Temporary  Powers) Act, the  Government  of  U.P. appointed the Collector, Deoria as the Authorised Controller of the Company.  On August 8, 1955 the Land Reforms  Commis- sioner  sanctioned the proposal submitted by the  Collector, Deoria, to sell the holdings and the property of the Company for realizing Rs. 8,38,176-13-0.  Sardar Jagjit Singh, Chief Engineer,  Indian  Institute of  Sugar  Technology,  Kanpur, valued the movables belonging to the Company i.e. tools  and workshop  plant, mill stores, spare parts and  furniture  at Rs.  7  ,  64,817/-,and the lands and  the  factory  at  Rs. 23,75,000/-.   Thereafter a sale proclamation was issued  on October  4,  1955, for recovery of the total amount  of  Rs. 8,38,176-13-0.  The sale was fixed for November 8, 1955.  In the first instance only the movables were put up for sale by the  Collector, Deoria, but the highest bid offered was  Rs. 2,75,000/-.   The Collector then put up for sale the  immov- able property for which a bid of Rs. 13,50,000/-was made and accepted.   The movables were then put up for sale, and  the highest bid for Rs. 2,75,000/- was accepted.  The purchasers of both the lots were the Cawnpore Sugar Works Ltd., through their  managing  agent Tulsidas Mundra-respondent No.  7  in this appeal. On December 6, 1955, the Company moved an application before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, under r. 285-1 of  the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules praying that the sale be set aside.  The Commissioner rejected the  peti- tion,  observing that an application under r. 285-1  of  the U.P.  Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules,  1952,  to set  aside a sale on the ground of material irregularity  or mistake  in publishing or conducting a sale may  be  granted only  if  the applicant proves to the  satisfaction  of  the Commissioner  that  he has sustained substantial  injury  by reason of such irregularity or mistake, and that no material irregularity  or  mistake  was proved  to  be  committed  in publishing  or conducting the sale, far less, a  mistake  or irregularity  which could have caused substantial injury  to the  applicant.  The sale was confirmed by order dated  July 2, 1956, by the Land Reforms Commissioner. On, July 30, a petition was moved by the Company in the High Court  of Allahabad for a writ in the nature  of  certiorari quashing the order dated June 25, 1956, of the Commissioner, Gorakhpur  Division.  The petition was dismissed by Oak,  J. In  appeal under the Letters Patent the order was  confirmed by  the High Court.  Mukherji, J., was of the view  that  s. 286 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act did not oblige the Collector to exhaust the processes prescribed by,  cls. (a) to (e) in s. 279 of that Act before  resorting to the sale of immovable property of the Company and that it was not proved that                             471 there   was  any  material  irregularity  or   mistake_   in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

publishing  or conducting the sale or that  any  substantial injury had resulted to the Company., Jagadish Sahai, J., was of the view that s. 2861(2) of the U.P. Zamindari  Abolition and  Land  Reforms  Act provides that  where  an  amount  is recoverable  as arrears of land revenue, the  Collector  has first to attempt under cls. (a) to (e) of s.279 to  recover the amount due, and if he is unable to recover the  amount,, he may proceed to sell the immovable       property of  the defaulter.   But the learned Judge was of the  opinion  that the  provision was merely directory and not.  mandatory.  He observed:  "........   the  provision  relating  to  the               exhaustion  of the processes  contemplated  by               clauses  (a) to (e) of section 279 of the  Act               is merely directory. In view of the provisions               of   the various  Acts   which   make   the               realization  of sums becoming due under  those               Acts as arrears of land revenue and in view of               the  provisions of the Act the, Collector  has               got  a  duty  and a  statutory  obligation  to               realise  those sums. He has no  discretion  in               the matter. Consequently I read the words "may               realise  the  same from the  interest  of  the               defaulter  in any immovable property" in  sub-               section  (1)  or "may be  recovered  from  any               immovable  property of the defaulter" in  sub-               section  (2) as meaning that if the  Collector               does not succeed in- recovering the amount  by               having recourse to the processes mentioned  in               clauses  (a) to (e) of section 279 of the  Act               he  shall  sell  immovable  property  of   the               defaulter."      The  learned  Judge also observed  that  the  Collector acted inviolation of the statutory provision contained  in s.  286(2)  of  the Act in selling  the  immovable  property before selling the movable property, but the sale could  not be  set aside, because substantial injury was not  shown  to have  been caused.  The Company has appealed to  this  Court against  the order passed by the ’High Court confirming  the order passed by Oak, J. In this appeal, it is urged in the first instance, that  the Company  possessed  stocks of sugar of value  exceeding  the liability for payment of Rs. 8,38,000/- odd.  But the stocks of sugar were not mentioned in the Collector’s report to the Land  Reforms Commissioner : they were not included  in  the sale  proclamation  as property put up for sale, nor  were they  valued  in  the report of Sardar  Jagjit  Singh.   The Company asserted in the petition ,before the High Court that it  possessed stocks of sugar worth Rs. 9 lakhs.  which  had not  been,  attached earlier, but no  such.  contention  was advanced in support of the application for setting. 472 aside the sale before the Commissioner, nor was any argument advanced before the High Court.  It appears that the  stocks of sugar were mortgaged separately and the amount for  which they were mortgaged was not included in the claim, made  for which the property of the Company was to be put up for sale. It was then urged that under S. 286(2) of Act 1 of 1951, the Collector,  was bound in the first instance to exhaust,  the processes for recovery of arrears prescribed by cls. (a)  to (e)  of S. 279 of the Act and he could not attach  and  sell immovable property of the Company until those processes were exhausted.   It  was  urged that s. 286(2) of  the  Act  was mandatory and the Collector not having sold the movables  in the first instance, the sale must be declared void.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

The amount for the recovery of which the sale of the  assets of the Company was held, included income-tax dues, sugarcane cess  and the amount due for cane supplied to the  Company. This  amount  was  recoverable as arrears  of  land  revenue because  of  the provisions of the  Indian  Income-tax  Act, 1922,  the U.P. Sugar Factories Control Act, 1938,  and  the Co-operative Societies Act 1912.  Section 286(2) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provides:               "Sums of money recoverable as arrears of  land               revenue,  but  not  due  in  respect  of   any               specific  land,  may be recovered  by  process               under   this  section  from   any immovable               property of the defaulter." Though the amount for which the property was put up for sale was  recoverable as arrears of land revenue, no part  of  it was  due in respect of any specific land.  The amount  could prima facie be recovered from the immovable property of  the defaulter.   But  relying upon the  expression  "under  this section" in S. 286(2) of Act 1 of 1951 it was contended that the immovable property of the Company could be attached  and sold only after the processes prescribed in s. 279 cls. (a) to  (e)  were resorted to and the Collector  was  unable  to recover the dues.  It was urged that this is the true effect of  s. 286(1) and s. 279 of Act 1 of 1951.   Section  286(1) provides :               "It  any  arrears of land  revenue  cannot  be               recovered by any of the processes mentioned in               clauses  (a)  to  (e)  of  Section  279,   the               Collector  may realize the same by  attachment               and  sale of the interest of the defaulter  in any  other   immovable   property   of   the               defaulter." Section 279 of the Act set-, out the procedure for  recovery of land revenue.  The section as it stood at the. date of We provided                             473               An arrear of land revenue may be recovered  by               any one or more of the following processes :               (a)   by  serving  a  writ  of  demand  or   a               citation to appear on any defaulter,               (b)   by arrest and detention of his person,.               (c)   by  attachment and sale of  his  movable               property including produce,               (d)   by attachment of the holding in  respect               of which the arrear is due,               (e)   by  sale  of the holding in  respect  of               which the arrear is due.               (f)   by   attachment   and  sale   of   other               immovable property of the defaulter." Section  280 deals with the mode of recovery  prescribed  by cl.  (a) of s. 279; s. 281 with the mode prescribed  by  cl. (b)  i.e. by arrest and detention; and s. 282 with the  mode prescribed  by  cl. (c) i.e. by attachment and sale  of  the movable  property including produce.  Section 284  sets  out the  procedure for sale of the holding in respect  of  which the  arrear  was due and s. 286(1) deals with the  power  to proceed.  against  the interest of the  defaulter  in  other immovable property. For  recovery of arrears of land revenue, the  Collector  is bound to resort to one or more of the processes mentioned in s. 279 read with ss. 280, 282, 284 & 285 of the Act,  before he  attaches  and  sells  the  immovable  property  of   the defaulter,  other than the holding in respect of  which  the land revenue is due.  That clearly follows from the terms of sub-s.  (1) of s. 286.  Subsection (2) of s. 286  makes  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

same process applicable for recovery of sums of money  which are  recoverable  as  arrears  of  land  revenue.   But  the liability to pay the amount so recoverable arises by  virtue of the provisions of other Acts and is not due in respect of any  holding  of the defaulter.  It is only  recoverable  as arrears of, land revenue by virtue of the provisions of  the Act under which the liability has arisen.  Since U.P. Act  1 of 1951 provides by s. 286(2) that sums of money recoverable as  arrears  of  land  revenue may  be  recovered  from  any immovable   property   of  the  defaulter,   the   procedure prescribed by the Act applies to such recovery.  Because  of the  use’ of the expression "under this section"  in  sub-s. (2)  of  s. 286 it is not intended that the  Collector  must resort in the first instance to the processes prescribed  by cls.  (a)  to (e) before he resorts to cl. (f), of  s.  279. Cls. (d) & (e) of s. 279 have no application, where  income- tax  dues and sugarcane cess or cane price  are  recoverable from  the defaulter : and cl. (b) is inapplicable where  the defaulter is an artificial person like a Company.  Power  to recover arrears of land reve- 414 nue from a defaulter is governed by the processes  mentioned in  S.  279 cls. (a) to (e), and s.  286(1)  places  certain restrictions upon the power of the Collector to recover land revenue  by  attachment and sale of lands  other  than  the holding  in respect of which the land revenue is  due.   But the restrictions-on the power of the Collector operate  only when  land revenue is in arrears.  Restrictions if any  upon the  power  of  the Collector to recover  dues  under  other statutes, as arrears of land revenue arise from the  statute which  is the source of the liability and not from Act 1  of 1951 which merely sets out the processes for recovery of the dues. To hold that sub-s. (2) of s. 286 requires the Collector  in the first instance to recover out of the movable property or by  arrest and detention of the defaulter  before  immovable property  of the defaulter is attached and sold is to  amend the  substantive  provisions  of the Acts  under  which  the liability for money due is recoverable as land revenue.  For instance  ,  under s. 46 (2) of the Indian  Income-tax  Act, 1922, it is provided               "The  Income-tax Officer may forward  /to  the               Collector  a certificate’ under his  signature               specifying  the amount of arrears due from  an               assessee,  and  the Collector, on  receipt  of               such  certificate,  shall proceed  to  recover               from   such  assessee  the  amount   specified               therein  as  if  it were an  arrear  of  land               revenue. :               Provided  that without prejudice to any  other               powers  of  the Collector in this  behalf,  he               shall  for the purpose of recovering the  said               amount have the powers which under the Code of               Civil  Procedure,  1908 (V of 1908),  a  Civil               Court  has for the purpose of the recovery  of               aim amount due under a decree. The  power  exercisable,  by  the  Collector  in  recovering arrears  of income-tax which are recoverable as  arrears  of land  revenue are, it is clear, not restricted to  the  Land Revenue Code: the Collector is entitled to exercise all  the powers  of a Civil Court for the purpose of recovery  of  an amount due under a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, and  the  Code of Civil Procedure imposes no  obligation  to recover  the  dues  by sale of movables  or  by  arrest  and detention of the defaulter before, immovable property may be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

attached.   Section  51  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure provides:               "Subject to such conditions and limitations as               may  be  prescribed,  the Court  may,  on  the               application   of  the   decree-holder,   order               execution of the decree-               (a) by     delivery     of    any     property               specifically decreed;               (b) by     attachment  and  sale  or  by  sale               without attachment of any property;               475               (c)   by arrest and detention in prison;               (d)   in  such other manner as the  nature  of               ’the relief granted may require               Provided................. By virtue of 0. 2 1 r. 30(e) of the Code of Civil  Procedure simultaneous execution both against the property and person of the judgment-debtor is allowed.  To hold, therefore, that in  seeking to recover income-tax dues the Collector  is  in the  first  instance,  by virtue of sub-s. (2)  of  s.  286, restricted to the recovery of arrears by attachment and sale of  movables  or by arrest and detention in  prison  of  the defaulter and it he cannot recover the amount then and then only  to  have  recourse to the immovable  property  of  the judgment-debtor  is  to seek to amend both  the,  Income-tax Act, 1922, as well as the Code of Civil Procedure.  The U  . P.  Legislature is competent to alter the provisions of  the Income-tax Act. We  are,  therefore,  unable  to  agree  with  the   opinion expressed  by jagadish Sahai, S., that the use of the  words "under  this  ,section" points to the applicability  of  the whole  section  i.e.  subsection (1) in  the  recovery  dues recoverable under sub-section (2) of section 286, and  "that the  two sub-sections have got to be read together  and  the effect  of sub-section (2) is that even in  connection  with the  recovery  of  miscellaneous dues  as  arrears  of  land revenue it is permissible to sell immovable property of  the defaulter but subject to what is provided for in sub-section (1)".   We are also unable to agree with  the  observations made by the learned Judge that               "........ if sub-section (2) of section 286 of               the  Act  were  to be read  in  isolation  and               detached  from subsection (1) it would  become               impossible  to  administer  the  same.    Sub-               section (2) only provides that the arrears  of               miscellaneous  dues may be recovered from  any               immovable  property of the  defaulter  without               specifying the manner in which they are to be               recovered, that is to say, without  indicating               whether   it  would  be  recovered  from   the               usufruct of the property or by its sale or  by               mortgage or lease." The  provisions of the Act which authorise recovery of  sums of  money  as  arrears of land revenue do  not  require  the Collector  to  follow  any sequence  of  the  processes  for recovery: it is competent to the Collector to ’resort to any process prescribed by s. 279 in aid of recovery of the  dues which  are  recoverable as arrears of land revenue.   It  is unnecessary in the circumstances to 476 consider  whether the provisions of s. 286(1) are  mandatory or directory. It  was  urged  in the alternative that  after  selling  the immovable property which realized more than Rs.  23,50,000/- the Collector should not have sold the movable property, for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

the  claim for which the properties of the Company were  put up  for  sale, was only Rs. 8,38,176-13-0.  At  first  blush there is force in this argument.  Why the Collector  thought it  necessary  to  sell the  movables  after  the  immovable property  was knocked down to the Cawnpore Sugar Works  Ltd. for   Rs.  23,50,000/-  was  never  explained.   After   the immovable property belonging to the Company was knocked down to  the purchasers for an amount of Rs. 23,50,000/-  it  was apparently  not  necessary to hold the auction for  sale  of movables  valued at Rs. 7,64,817/- and to accept a  bid  of only Rs. 2,75,000/-.  The argument that the movables were of no  use to any person other than the purchaser of  immovable property is without substance.  The movables sold we’re  the tools  and  workshop  plant, mill stores,  spare  parts  and furniture, and it is difficult to accept the contention that these  movables  were of no value except to  the  purchaser. But  the Company raised no contention in this behalf  before the Commissioner, nor in the petition before the High Court. The  question was also not argued before the High  Court  in that form.  We cannot at this stage investigate the  reasons why  movables valued at Rs. 7,64,817/- were put up for  sale and  sold when it was not necessary to sell them to  realise the dues. It  was  then  urged that the  Income-tax  Officer  had,  by intimation  dated December 11, 1954, asked the Collector  to stay  the  sale proceeding for recovery of  income-tax  dues amounting to Rs. 81,821-2-0.  For some reason, which is  not clear from the record, the Collector ignored the  intimation given  by  the Income-tax Officer and proceeded to  put  the property  to  sale.   He included the  amount  in  the  sale proclamation,  overruling the protests of the  Company,  and sold  the properties for recovery of a  consolidated  amount which  included  Rs. 81,821-2-0 due as income-tax.   But  on that  account  the  sale is not illegal  or  irregular.   An amount  exceeding  Rs.  7  lakhs  was  recoverable  for  the sugarcane cess and the cane price and the immovable property of the Company could have been put up for sale for  recovery of those dues.  The sale is not proved to be vitiated on the ground of any material irregularity or mistake in publishing or  conducting it, and it is therefore not liable to be  set aside. It  was  finally  con that the Company  was  prevented  from exercising  its  right under r. 285-H of  the  rules  framed under U.P. Act 1 of 1951, because the purchaser at the  sale was   appointed,  by  order  of  the   Central   Government, Authoriged Con-                             477 troller  of  the  factory  of  the  Company,  and  all   the properties  of the ’Company were put in +.he  possession  of the purchaser, and that the Company  was unable to raise the requisite amount to be deposited under r.  285-H.  Under  r. 285-H  any person whose holding or other immovable  property has  been sold under the Act may, at any time within  thirty days from the date of sale, apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in the Collector’s office-               (a)   for  payment  to the  purchaser,  a  sum               equal  to 5 per cent. of the  purchase  money;               and               (b)   for  payment on account of  the  arrear,               the  amount specified in the  proclamation  in               Z.A. Form 74 as that for the recovery of which               the  sale was ordered, less any amount  which               may,  since the date of such  proclamation  of               sale, have been paid on that account; and               (c)   the cost of the sale.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

If  the deposit is made, the Collector shall pass  an  order setting aside the sale.  It was open to the Company under r. 285-H  even after the bids were accepted to deposit  5  per cent. of the sum realised by sale of the immovable  property and to pay the amount due for the recovery of which the sale was  ordered and the cost of the sale.  But no  attempt  was made to deposit the amounts mentioned in cls. (a), (b) & (c) of r. 285-H.  The contention that the Company was unable  to make the deposit under Rule 285-H because the purchaser  was appointed  Authorised Controller was also not raised  before the  Commissioner and the High Court.  The argument that  if the movable property had not been sold, the Company may have raised the amount liable to be deposited under cls. (a), (b) &  (c), but by sale of those properties and purchase of  the same  by  a  person  who  was  shortly  after  the  purchase appointed  the Authorised Controller prevented  the  Company from  exercising the right under r. 285-H  is  hypothetical. Again even that argument was not raised before the  Commis- sioner, nor in the petition, nor in the arguments before the High  Court.  Evidently, the Company was required to  comply with  the  provisions of r. 285-H for having  the  sale  set aside  to  deposit an amount of Rs. 9,50,000/-  besides  the cost  of the sale.  Even if the movables had not been  sold, and  assuming that they were of the value of Rs.  7,64,817/- the  movables were not sufficient to enable the  Company  to raise the amount required for deposit under r. 285-H. The contentions raised by the Company fail and the appeal is dismissed.  We are, however, of the view, especially because of  the action of the Collector in putting the  movables  to sale even Sup CI/69-12 478 after the immovable property realised an amount very much in excess of the dues, and ignoring the intimation sent by  the Income-tax  Officer to stay the sale proceeding,  which  has involved  the  Company in loss of  property  of  substantial value,  that  the  parties  should  bear  their  own   costs throughout. Y.P.                               Appeal dismissed. 479