S.V. MUZUMDAR VS TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, 2002 PTD-DELHI-HIGH-COURT-INDIA 1229 (1999)

Income-tax---

----Recovery of tax---Writ---Attachment and sale of property---Aggrieved person can appeal against order of attachment and proclamation of sale-- Writ would not issue to quash order---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.220, Sched. II, R.86---Constitution of India, Art. 226.

The petitioner purchased a property after the property had already been attached by the Income-tax Department. On a writ petition against the attachment, dated February 18, 1988, and the proclamation of sale, dated February 26, 1990, by the Department.

Held, that the petitioner had the right of appeal under Schedule II, rule 86 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the petitioner had the alternate statutory remedy against the impugned proclamation, the writ petition was not maintainable.

Ms. Rachna Rao for Petitioner.

R.D. Jolly with Ajay Jha for Respondents.

JUDGMENT

C. M. No. 147 of 1998 in C. W. P: No. 954 of 1990:

By this application the petitioner has sought information about the status of demand of the Income-tax Department against respondent No.2. Mr. Jolly, counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 3, has stated at the Bar, on instructions from Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Tax Recovery Officer, Patiala, who is present in Court, that presently the demand against respondent No.2 is Rs.8,27,899. Mr. Jolly further submits that fresh proclamation proposed to be issued will incorporate the revised demand. In view of this statement made by Mr. Jolly this application stands disposed of.

C.W.P. No.954 of 1990:

The petitioner has sought quashing of the attachment, dated February 18,1988, and the proclamation of sale, dated February 26, 1990, with respect to Property No.B-3, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, allegedly belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have purchased this property from respondent No.2 after paying full consideration for the same. Learned counsel for the Income-tax Department, however, submits that the petitioner purchased the property after the property had already been attached by the Income-tax Department. So far as the question of grievance of the petitioner against the proclamation of sale by the Income-tax Department is concerned learned counsel for the department pointed out that the petitioner has a right of appeal against such an order under rule 86 of Schedule II to the Income-tax Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may not have any right of appeal under the said rule because the petitioner was not a party to the assessment proceedings. On this aspect learned counsel for the Department concedes that the petitioner will also have a right of appeal under rule 86 as he is an aggrieved person. In view of this, the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal against the impugned proclamation. The writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable. The same is dismissed.

Interim orders passed in the petition are hereby vacated. No. costs.

M.B.A./609/FC Petition dismissed.