9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the order to arrest and detain the appellant in civil prison under the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Challenge to the order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer. 3. Sufficiency of the opportunity given to the appellant during the enquiry process. 4. Jurisdiction of the court in proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Appealability of the order passed under Schedule II, rule 76 of the Income-tax Act. Analysis: 1. The appellant challenged the order to arrest and detain him in civil prison under Schedule II, rule 76 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the grounds of lack of enquiry before the order was passed. The Tax Recovery Officer conducted an enquiry before ordering the arrest, as evidenced by the appellant appearing with his counsel before the Officer and being heard. The Officer concluded that the appellant should be arrested after considering the contentions put forward by both the Income-tax Officer and the appellant. The court found that the enquiry was conducted as required by law, and the challenge to the order was rightly repelled. 2. The order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer was challenged, alleging insufficiency of opportunity given to the appellant during the enquiry process. Both the single judge and the court found that the appellant had been given a proper opportunity to present his case, and the enquiry conducted by the Officer was not perfunctory. The appellant and his advocate were heard, and the Officer completed the enquiry on the same day, which was deemed sufficient under the circumstances. 3. The jurisdiction of the court in proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India was questioned regarding the findings of the Tax Recovery Officer that the appellant had the means to pay the tax arrears but neglected to do so. The court held that such findings of fact are not open to challenge in article 226 proceedings, denying jurisdiction based on this reasoning. 4. The appealability of the order passed under Schedule II, rule 76 of the Income-tax Act was raised, as the appellant had not appealed against the order but sought relief under article 226 of the Constitution. The court noted that the order was appealable, and the failure to file a statutory appeal was sufficient to deny jurisdiction under article 226. The court upheld the view that the appellant should have appealed against the order instead of challenging it through article 226 proceedings. 5. Ultimately, the writ appeal was dismissed in limine, affirming the decisions of the Tax Recovery Officer and the single judge regarding the validity of the order, sufficiency of opportunity given during the enquiry, and the jurisdiction of the court in entertaining challenges to factual findings and appealable orders under the Income-tax Act.
|
