- (1.) THIS is a petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Bharat Stores Ltd., Agra, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, for the following relief: (a) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the properties of the petitioner from attachment towards the income-tax demand, (b) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the sum of Rs. 7 lakhs with interest as having been in excess realised from the petitioner towards the tax demand, (c) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 from further realising any amount from the petitioner on the pretext that the tax demand is still due and outstanding against the petitioner, (d) a suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(2.) THE allegations made are that the petitioner has already paid the entire amount of tax and that the High Court in a First Appeal No. 453 of 1958, fought in between the parties, had given a finding to the effect that the petitioner had paid the amount in excess. The petitioner has asserted that the property, namely, Panna Bhawan, Swadeshi Bima Nagar, Agra, had been attached and, as such on account of the continued attachment of the property and realisation of rent from the tenants of the property, the amount realised by the IT Department is in excess of the liability of the petitioner. The petitioner stated that on a complaint made by it, an enquiry was launched. In connection with which, the TRO was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and he reported, on 25th February, 1984, that the amount more than due from the petitioner had been realised by the IT authorities. On the allegations made above, the petitioner has sought the reliefs mentioned above. In the counter-affidavit the allegations made in the writ petition have been denied. The sum and substance of the allegations in the counter-affidavit was that the petitioner was still in arrears and that the allegations contrary to that are not correct. In the counter-affidavit the stand of the petitioner that by the attachment of the property by the IT authorities, the recovery became time barred, has also been countered. We need not go into that question. What appears appropriate to us is to call upon the CIT, to appoint some officer to look into the controversy involved in the present writ petition and to find out whether the petitioner has already paid more than the liability of the income-tax and has already paid the demand made. If a finding is reached in favour of the petitioner (Bharat Stores Ltd.), the appropriate action will be taken for releasing the property. if there are no other dues. Since the matter is an old one, it appears appropriate that we give four month's time to the CIT to get the whole thing examined and done.
(3.) SUBJECT to the above, the writ petition is disposed of.;