Income-tax---

----Recovery of tax---Sale of property---Writ---Proclamation of sale rejecting objections of assessee---Assessee can raise same objections even after proclamation of sale is drawn up---Petition on the ground that property does not belong to assessee can be filed even after sale is held---Sale cannot be confirmed till such petition is disposed of---Writ petition against proclamation of sale not maintainable---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961-- Constitution of India, Art.226.

Held, dismissing the writ petition, that even after the proclamation of sale was drawn up, objections could be raised before the Tax Recovery Officer in terms of the earlier objections raised and even after the sale was held, a claim petition could be filed by the petitioners and without disposing of the same, the sale could not be confirmed. The petitioners ought not to have approached the Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when they had clear remedies available.

R.V. Subba Rao, R.V. Prasad and R. V. Nagabhushana Rao for Petitioner.

S.R. Ashok for Respondents.

JUDGMENT

S. PARVATHAH RAO, J.--The petitioners' grievance is that when :in earlier sale proclamation was issued on March 22, 1995, they immediately represented to the first respondent, i.e., the Tax Recovery Officer, on April 5, 1995, that the property sought to be brought to sale does not belong to the Hindu undivided family-assessee, that it was the separate property of the Karta of Hindu undivided family who gifted the same to the petitioners several years back and, therefore, the said property could not be brought to sale for the recovery of the wealth tax dues of the Hindu undivided family assessee, and that without disposing of the said claim, once again the very same properties are being brought to sale. The petitioners thus question the notice for settling the proclamation of sale, dated October 13, 1995, which, inter alia, states that November 15, 1995, has been fixed for drawing up the proclamation of sale and for settling the terms thereof.

Even though the said notice is of October 13, 1995, the petitioners have approached this Court only on November 13, 1995, by way of the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners did not approach the first respondent again bringing to his notice the objections raised by them earlier in their representation, dated April 5, 1995. He also accepts that even after the proclamation of sale is drawn up, objections can be raised before the first respondent in terms of the earlier objections raised and that even after the sale is held, a claim petition can be filed by the petitioners and that without disposing of the same, the sale cannot be confirmed.

In the circumstances, we find that the petitioners ought not to have approached this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when they have clear remedies available. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, only on the ground that the petitioners have alternative remedy available to them to question on the proposed sale of property said to have been gifted to them by the Karta of the Hindu undivided family-assessee.

M.B.A./1264/FC Petition dismissed