DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) The Court :- The Income Tax Department assails a sale of 1/9th share in an immovable property undertaken by the State Bank of India on March 24, 2010 under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, the immovable property stood attached by virtue of an order of attachment dated February 23, 1976 as well as another order of attachment dated March 23, 2007. Although the order of attachment dated March 23, 2007 was subsequently lifted the order of attachment dated March 23, 1976 remained on the date of the confirmation of sale on March 24, 2007. Therefore, the State Bank of India could not have put up the property for sale. Assuming that the sale conducted by the State Bank of India is valid, then the entire sale proceeds should be made over to the Income Tax Department inasmuch as the property stood attached by virtue of the order of attachment dated February 23, 1976.
(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners refer to W.P. No. 456 of 1993 and the order passed therein. She submits that, in view of the order of status quo passed in WP No. 456 of 1993 dated February 14, 2002, the State Bank of India could not have sold the property. She submits that, the State Bank of India has acted in violation of such order in putting up the property for sale. She refers to the letter dated December 26, 1986, which according to her, refers to the order of attachment dated February 23, 1976. She submits that, the State Bank of India had knowledge of the order of attachment, since the State Bank of India is one of the petitioners in WP No. 456 of 1993. She also refers to the summons issued by the Tax Recovery Officer. She further submits that, the proclamation of sale was under challenge in WP No. 456 of 1993.;