2006 (10) TMI 85 - HC - Income Tax

Writ petition against orders passed u/r 11(5) rejecting the objections of the assessee held that alternative remedy by way of filing a suit is available with assessee u/r 11(6) so writ court is not going to interfere with the impugned writ petition

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of order attaching premises for tax arrears
2. Rejection of objections under Rule 11(5) of Income-tax Rules
3. Availability of alternative remedy under Rule 11(6)

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of order attaching premises for tax arrears
The judgment involves a petition challenging an order attaching premises for tax arrears under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act. The premises in question are Office Nos.101 and 106 situated in Persepolis Premises at Vashi, Navi Mumbai, owned by a former Director of Emar Hotels. A garnishee notice was issued under section 226(3) of the Act to M/s. Bajaj Allianz, the tenants of the premises, directing them to pay rent to the tax recovery officer. The petitioner raised objections against this order, which were subsequently rejected under Rule 11(5) of the Income-tax Rules.

Issue 2: Rejection of objections under Rule 11(5) of Income-tax Rules
The petitioner contested the rejection of objections under Rule 11(5) of the Income-tax Rules through the present petition. Despite the petitioner's arguments challenging the order, the court noted that under Rule 11(6) of the same Rules, the party against whom an order is made may institute a civil suit to establish the right to the property in dispute. The court emphasized that the availability of this alternative remedy, namely filing a suit, precludes interference by the writ court when an effective alternative remedy exists for the party.

Issue 3: Availability of alternative remedy under Rule 11(6)
In light of the alternative remedy provided under Rule 11(6) of the Income-tax Rules, the court concluded that the proper course of action for the petitioner is to file a suit in a civil court to establish their right to the property in question. The judgment highlights that when such an alternative remedy is available to a party, the writ court is generally not expected to intervene. Consequently, the court declined to entertain the petition challenging the rejection of objections and dismissed it without imposing any costs.

In summary, the judgment underscores the importance of exhausting alternative remedies available under the law before seeking intervention from the court, particularly in matters concerning tax arrears and property disputes under the Income-tax Act and related Rules.