2019 (10) TMI 1444 - HC - Income Tax

Recovery proceedings - notices/orders of attachment - petition seeking set aside of order of attachments as the Petitioner being a secured creditor under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 has priority in recovery of its debts over the dues of the State - HELD THAT - We note that the Petitioner has made various representations to Respondent No.1, the last being dated 30 August 2019 emphasizing its priority over the security. In spite of the above, the Respondent No.1- Tax Recovery Officer has not disposed of the same. Respondent No.1- Tax Recovery Officer, on instruction, states that the representation of the Petitioner dated 30 August 2019 would be disposed by Respondent No.1 within a period of four weeks from today after granting personal hearing to the Petitioner. We accept the above statement. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer on its representation, it would be open for the Petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notices/orders of attachment by Tax Recovery Officer, Priority of secured creditor under SARFAESI Act, Disposal of representations made by Petitioner, Judicial review of Tax Recovery Officer's order.

Analysis:
The petition sought to set aside notices/orders of attachment issued by the Tax Recovery Officer concerning two office premises at Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai. The Petitioner claimed priority in debt recovery as a secured creditor under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002. Despite various representations made by the Petitioner, the Tax Recovery Officer had not disposed of them, prompting the Petitioner to approach the court.

The court noted the Petitioner's representations, with the latest dated 30 August 2019, emphasizing its priority over the security interest. The Respondent's counsel assured that the representation would be addressed within four weeks from the current date after granting a personal hearing to the Petitioner. The court accepted this undertaking.

It was emphasized that if the Petitioner found the order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer on its representation unsatisfactory, it had the right to challenge it in accordance with the law. The court disposed of the petition based on the assurance given by the Respondent's counsel, with all contentions being kept open for further review or challenge as necessary.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the immediate concern of the Petitioner regarding the notices/orders of attachment by ensuring the pending representation would be dealt with in a timely manner. The court upheld the Petitioner's right to challenge any adverse decision by the Tax Recovery Officer, thereby providing a legal recourse for judicial review if required.