1990 (9) TMI 62 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to notice, order of attachment, and recovery proceedings under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
- Disposal of application and adjustment of payments made by petitioners
- Petitioners' request to examine the record pertaining to the recovery against them

Analysis:
The petitioners sought the quashing of a notice, order of attachment, and recovery proceedings under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. They also requested a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondents from continuing with the recovery. The petitioners contended that the recovery certificate sent directly by the Excess Profits Tax Officer to the Collector was against the law, and they raised concerns about interest and penalty charges. A previous writ petition had directed the Tax Recovery Officer to decide on an application, which the petitioners claimed had not been disposed of. The respondents argued that the application had been dealt with. The petitioners also disputed the adjustments made by the Department regarding the payments they had made.

Regarding the examination of the record pertaining to the recovery against them, the petitioners contended that they should be allowed to inspect the record due to the age of the recovery certificate. The court found it fair to permit the petitioners to examine the record to ascertain the payments made and adjustments to be made. The respondents were directed to dispose of the petitioners' objection to a letter dated May 14, 1990, and allow the petitioners to inspect the record. Until the objection was resolved, further proceedings, including the demand notice and order of proclamation of sale, were stayed. The petitioners were instructed to present themselves before the Tax Recovery Officer for inspection of the record, with default resulting in the vacation of the stay order.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition with the above directions, allowing the petitioners to examine the record and ensuring a fair process in the recovery proceedings. The petitioners were required to present themselves for inspection, failing which the stay order would be lifted.