9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to validity of recovery proceedings initiated by ITO, jurisdiction of Tax Recovery Officer (TRO), issuance of warrant for arrest without proper procedure, relief sought against arrest warrant in recovery proceedings. Analysis: The petitioners challenged the recovery proceedings initiated by the ITO, "A" Ward, Ferozabad, through petitions under art. 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners had entered into a settlement in 1972 to discharge income-tax liabilities of various entities. Subsequently, recovery certificates were forwarded to the TRO, leading to a notice for the petitioners to show cause for potential civil prison detention. The petitioners contended that the TRO's actions indicated an intent to commit them to civil custody without proper jurisdiction, focusing the relief sought against steps for civil prison commitment without addressing objections to the recovery certificate execution. The legal framework for tax recovery procedures under the Second Schedule to the I.T. Act was examined. Rule 73 outlines the conditions for arrest and detention in civil prison, requiring a defaulter to appear before the TRO and show cause before any such order is made. Rule 74 mandates an enquiry process before committing a defaulter to civil prison. The TRO's power to issue a warrant of arrest is governed by subrules (2) and (3) of r. 73. The TRO must follow due process, including hearing the defaulter's objections before any detention order under r. 76. The court found that the TRO's actions did not align with the procedural requirements of the Second Schedule. Despite the petitioners' appearances before the TRO in response to the show-cause notice, a warrant for arrest was issued prematurely. The court noted that the TRO's attempt to arrest the petitioners lacked justification as the necessary conditions for arrest under r. 73 were not met. The relief sought by the petitioners encompassed challenging the improper issuance of the arrest warrant as part of the overall recovery proceedings, which the court deemed valid for consideration. Ultimately, the court allowed the petitions to the extent of directing the TRO not to proceed with the arrest of the petitioners based on warrants allegedly issued prematurely. The TRO was instructed not to commit the petitioners to civil custody without following the prescribed procedures, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the rules outlined in the Second Schedule. The court clarified that if the conditions for arrest under r. 73 were met subsequently, the TRO could act accordingly. Each party was directed to bear their own costs in the petitions, concluding the judgment.
|
