Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta,J. - (1.) By this writ application the petitioner has challenged an order dated April 6, 2004, and the notice dated April 7, 2004, and the proceedings pending in relation thereto. By the aforesaid impugned order, the Tax Recovery Officer purported to have decided the matter in terms of the judgment and order of the appeal court dated January 15, 2004. Therefore, it would be proper for me to reproduce the exact language of the judgment hereunder : "Therefore, the order impugned (annexure P 62 of the writ petition) is set aside with liberty to the Tax Recovery Officer to exercise his jurisdiction within the scope and ambit of Clause (vi) of Section 226(3) as discussed above, namely, with regard to the genuineness or the falsity of the objection raised without sitting in appeal on the merits of the objection itself after giving opportunity to SWCL. The appeal thus stands allowed to the extent indicated above. The notices (annexures P 29 to P 34 of the writ petition) issued to APBCL and the other debetors of SWCL (respondents Nos. 9 to 18) under Section 226(3) and the order (annexure P 62 of the writ petition) passed by the Tax Recovery Officer on the objection of SWCL under Clause (vi) of Section 226(3) are hereby quashed subject to the order passed above. Let a writ of certiorari do issue accordingly. The Tax Recovery Officer shall decide the objection of SWCL under Section 226(3)(vi) before proceeding under Section 226(3) against SWCL in the light of the observation made in hereinabove. Let a writ of mandamus do issue accordingly. The Tax Recovery Officer is restrained from proceeding with the proceedings under Section 226(3) against SWCL till the decree becomes executable and a fresh decision on the objection under Clause (vi) of Section 226(3) is taken. Let a writ of prohibition do issue to that extent."
(2.) Therefore, it is dear from the aforesaid impugned order that previously an order was passed under Section 226(3), Clause (vi), and the said order was, however, set aside by the hon'ble appeal court with the aforesaid direction.
(3.) It is an admitted position that the petitioners being the garnishee were served with several notices dated September 10, 2000, October 10, 2000, and October 24, 2000. It appears from the copies of the notices annexed, to the writ petition that these notices were served at Calcutta office and the same were received. It appears from the records that challenging the aforesaid notices the writ petitioner unsuccessfully moved a writ petition in this court. However, ultimately, the order was passed by the Tax Recovery Officer and pursuant to the notices as above, the said order was challenged in this court.;