9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of civil court to challenge orders passed under Income-tax Act. 2. Validity of notice served under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Representation of society by Mr. Basant Lal Rawal. 4. Dismissal of civil suit as infructuous. Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case is the jurisdiction of a civil court to challenge orders passed under the Income-tax Act. The court referred to section 293 of the Income-tax Act, which bars suits in civil courts to set aside or modify any proceedings or orders made under the Act. The trial court initially declined to grant an ad interim injunction based on this jurisdictional bar, but the appellate court later granted the injunction, leading to the revision petition by the Income-tax Department. 2. The next issue revolves around the validity of the notice served under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act. The respondent-society contended that they were not served with the notice/order, which would render the order invalid. On the other hand, the Income-tax Department claimed that the notice was received by Mr. Basant Lal Rawal on behalf of the society. The court suggested that the matter could be resolved by directing the Tax Recovery Officer to hear a representative of the society to determine the validity of the service of the notice. 3. The representation of the society by Mr. Basant Lal Rawal is a crucial aspect of the case. The society argued that Mr. Rawal had no authority to represent them or receive any communication on their behalf. The court proposed that if the objection of the society regarding the service of the notice on Mr. Rawal is upheld, the orders in question would not stand. Conversely, if the service on Mr. Rawal is deemed valid, the orders would stand, subject to any lawful objections raised by the society. 4. Finally, the court decided to dismiss the revision petition and directed the parties to appear before the Tax Recovery Officer for further directions. The civil suit filed by the respondent-society was deemed infructuous and ordered to be dismissed. The Tax Recovery Officer was instructed to expedite the matter and pass a speaking order after hearing all concerned parties. The court's decision aimed to resolve the issues raised and bring the matter to a conclusive end.
|
