The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an attachment notice issued by the Tax Recovery Officer to the Sub-Registrar. The Court held the notice lacked causation for a writ and noted Rule 11, Schedule II of the Income Tax Act provided the appropriate remedy before the competent authority.
Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17-04-2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM WP No.17253 of 2012 And MP No.2 of 2012
M/s.Srinivasa Enterprises,
Represented by its Managing Partner,
R.Vivek S/o.S.Ramakrishnan,
Office at No.406, 17 th Phase,
SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Ambattur,
Chennai-600 098.
vs.
1.The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Ponneri-601 204.
2.The Tax Recovery Officer-I,
Company Range-I,
Income Tax Department,
Chennai-34.
.. Petitioner
vs.
.. Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in attachment notice dated 22.09.2009 in T.R.No.43-C/05-06 & 49 – Cof 06-07 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and unjustifiable.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thiyagarajan, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar. For Respondent-1 : Mr.T.M.Pappiah, Special Government Pleader.
For Respondent-2 : Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan, Senior Standing Counsel.
O R D E R
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to call for the records in attachment notice dated 22.09.2009 in T.R.No.43-C/05-06 & 49 - Cof 06-07 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.
“You are also hereby intimated not to allow the above defaulter from further alienation and transfer of any of the properties attached by the department, and also not to register any of the sale of the properties attached by the department without previous approval or No Objection Certificates from the Incometax, and you are also requested to intimate the persons whoever contacting you in respect of transfer/sale of the defaulter's properties mentioned above, to contact the undersigned in this regard, and failure in this regard will be viewed very seriously, and necessary legal action will be taken as per the directions of the Higher Authorities.
The above details are required to be furnished on or before 06-10-2009.”
Constitution of India. All such factual disputes are to be adjudicated and resolved before the Competent Authority. Under Rule 11, Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, provides remedy to the aggrieved person and therefore, the petitioner has to avail the remedy by approaching the Authorities Competent in the manner known to law.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an attachment notice issued by a Tax Recovery Officer to a Sub-Registrar providing cause of action for a writ petition under Article 226.
Whether a writ court can adjudicate factual disputes regarding attachment notices instead of the competent authority.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Srinivasa Enterprises
The Sub Registrar, Ponneri
The Tax Recovery Officer-I, Chennai
S.M. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
