Case Law Details
Champa Devi Vs Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) (Madras High Court)
In the instant case, the respondent has issued the impugned notice and the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court and filed this writ petition. In my considered view, this writ petition is not the proper remedy, which the petitioner should have availed. In this regard, it is relevant to point out that the 2nd Schedule to the Income Tax Act contains the procedure for recovery of tax. Under the said Schedule, there is a power conferred on the Tax Recovery Officer / respondent for investigation under Rule 11.
In terms of the above Rule, if any claim is preferred to, or any objection is made to the attachment or sale of, any property in execution of a certificate, on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment or sale, the Tax Recovery Officer shall proceed to investigate the claim or objection. The procedure for such investigation and the manner in which the proceedings to be conducted are enumerated under Rule 11 of the said Rules. Therefore, if the petitioner’s claim is that the property is not liable for such attachment, then the petitioner has to make a claim before the Tax Recovery Officer and for such reason, the petitioner could not have approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Court holds that the writ petition is not maintainable. However, considering the fact that the Income Tax Act and Rules framed thereunder, especially Rule 11 under the 2nd Schedule, provides for a remedy to the assessee, the petitioner is at liberty to avail such a remedy.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
Heard Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
