- (1.) THE petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the action of the respondent in arresting the petitioner for realisation of the alleged income-tax-dues.
(2.) ON March 22, 1988, after hearing the parties under Rule 76 of the rules framed under the Income-tax Act, the Tax Recovery Officer, Income-tax Department, Gorakhpur, took a decision that the petitioner was intentionally avoiding the payment of income-tax dues and was thus liable to be sent to civil imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 86 of the Rules. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid appeal has not been disposed of uptil now. At the admission stage, we have heard Sri R. K. Agarwal, learned standing counsel, appearing for the Department, and the present writ petition is being disposed of finally in accordance with the rules of the court.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is already pursuing his remedy when he has already filed an appeal before the Tax Recovery Commissioner. The petitioner is also entitled to move an application under Rule 86(3) of the Rules. In such a case, if an application is moved and the appellate authority comes to the conclusion that the execution of the tax recovery should be stayed, the consequences of such stay order will be that the petitioner will be entitled to be released forthwith subject to the final decision which is taken in the appeal. If such an application is moved, the same shall be decided by the Tax Recovery Commissioner within a week from the presentation of the application. The Tax Recovery Commissioner will also see to it that the appeal is finally disposed of in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the certified copy of our order. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of.;