9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to auction of property, jurisdiction of Tax Recovery Officer, legality of assessment proceedings, non-service of notice of demand, validity of assessment orders, applicability of writ petition, leave to appeal to Supreme Court. Analysis: The writ petition was filed by the heirs and legal representatives of Smt. Bitti Kunwar, contesting the auction of her property. The Tax Recovery Officer rejected the objections raised by the legal heirs, stating that the business was being carried out under the association of Smt. Bitti Kunwar and others, and dismissed other objections as well. The High Court noted that the Tax Recovery Officer's jurisdiction is limited when dealing with objections against attachment and sale, emphasizing that the correctness of assessment orders cannot be disputed before the Officer. The Court highlighted that the Officer found Smt. Bitti Kunwar's liability for specific assessment years only, and the recovery of income-tax dues was based on those years. One of the arguments made was regarding the legality of assessment proceedings due to the alleged non-service of notice to Smt. Bitti Kunwar. The Court observed that the objection regarding non-service of notice was not conclusively decided by the Tax Recovery Officer, and the Court was not inclined to intervene based on the materials presented. Another contention was the validity of ex parte assessment orders, for which the petitioners had applied under the Income-tax Act. The Court clarified that neither the Tax Recovery Officer nor the Court could address this issue during the property sale proceedings or through the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Ultimately, the Court upheld the Tax Recovery Officer's decision, finding no error on record, and dismissed the writ petition summarily. The Court also rejected the prayer for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, as the petition did not raise any substantial question of law of general importance.
|
