M M N D KANAKASABAI Vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M M N D Kanakasabai
TAX RECOVERY OFFICER
Click here to view full judgement.
G.SIVARAJAN, J. -
(1.) THE petitioner who is an assessee to income -tax is presently aggrieved by an order of attachment (Ext. P1) of the immovable property in Form No. ITCP -16 issued under Rule 48 of the Second Schedule to the IT Act, 1961. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this notice has been issued without prior notice or opportunity as contemplated under the Second Schedule. The counsel also points out that TR.1075, 1076, etc. mentioned in Ext. P1 does not exist at all and that the property mentioned in Ext. P1 has been released to the petitioner pursuant to the direction issued in Ext. P2 order and covered by Ext. P3 release order. The counsel, in such circumstances, wants to quash Ext. P1 notice.
(2.) I have also heard Shri George K. George, standing counsel for Government of India (Taxes) appearing for the respondent. He brings to my notice that the petitioner has got a remedy provided under r, 11 of the Second Schedule to the Act.
I find merit in the said submission. The petitioner had raised various aspects in regard to the sustainability of Ext, P1 notice which cannot be resolved in this writ petition. In such circumstances, it is for the petitioner to file appropriate representation before the concerned authority provided under the Second Schedule to the Act itself. If the petitioner files appropriate representation within three weeks from today, the same will be duly considered and appropriate decision taken by the concerned authority before proceeding further in the matter. The petitioner will also be heard while considering the representation to be filed by the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above, The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment before the concerned authority for compliance.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.