B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated February 15, 1989 (annexure 17 to the writ petition), issued by the Income-tax Officer, Ward III(2), Bunda. Under the impugned order, the petitioner has been called upon to remit the amount held by him for and on behalf of the defaulter, which was attached by the Income-tax Officer, earlier under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The order puts the petitioner on notice that he has made payment to the defaulter even after receiving the attachment order which is illegal. Indeed, the impugned notice was issued in response to a representation made by the petitioner on February 13, 1989.
(2.) ONE Gopal Das Gupta is the defaulter. For the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the total tax assessed was Rs. 67,44,255. A notice of demand was issued to the assessee-defaulter. On February 3, 1978, a notice was issued under Section 226(3) of the Act addressed to the firm, Lalman Bhagwati Prasad (of which the petitioner was then a partner), stating that the aforesaid amount of tax is due from Gopal Das Gupta and that they should pay the amount held by them, on account of the said defaulter, to the Income-tax Officer. According to the petitioner, the firm was holding an amount of Rs. 1,03,008 on account of the said defaulter on that day. The firm did not remit any amount in response to the said notice. The petitioner says that he addressed a letter dated February 25, 1978, to the Income-tax Officer stating that, according to the information furnished by the assessee-defaulter to him, the demand of tax against him was stayed and, therefore, the notice dated February 3, 1978, may be withdrawn. He also says that he enclosed a copy of the stay order dated January 4, 1978, with the said letter. He says that he did not receive any reply to his letter dated February 25, 1978. Against the orders of assessment, Gopal Das Gupta filed appeals. The appellate authority set aside the assessments on October 27, 1978, and remitted the matter for making fresh assessments. While it is not necessary to trace the course of those assessment proceedings, suffice it to mention that an assessment was finally made in 1988, whereunder, the tax assessed came down to Rs. 14,00,000 and odd.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the firm, Lalman Bhagwati Prasad, of which he as a partner was closed in the year 1982. On November 1, 1982, says the petitioner, he addressed a letter to the Income-tax Officer intimating him of the closure of the said partnership firm and stating further that, though according to Gopal Das Gupta, no demand was pending against him, the order under Section 226(3) issued to the partnership firm had not yet been withdrawn. The petitioner asked the Income-tax Officer to tell him what to do in the matter. The petitioner says, he did not receive any reply to this representation also. He repeated similar requests in the year 1984, but again there was no response. During the years 1984 and 1985, the petitioner says, he paid the entire amount held by him on account of the defaulter to the defaulter. This was done by him because there was no response to his repeated letters addressed to the Income-tax Officer and, according to the material supplied by the defaulter, no demands were outstanding against him.;