2007 (8) TMI 343 - SC - Income Tax

Whether there has been a proper notice of demand served on the decree-holder (assessee in default) according to law? Held that - As the Special Court having noted the relevant legal provision for rejecting the applications, no exception can be taken to the order passed by it. At any rate we have examined the matter on merits and have arrived at a conclusion that the intervention applications were not maintainable before the Special Court. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Special Court.
2. Priority of claims in the distribution of sale proceeds.
3. Applicability of Section 226(4) of the Income-tax Act.
4. Overriding effect of the Special Court Act over other laws.

Detailed Analysis:

Jurisdiction of the Special Court:
The Special Court's jurisdiction is confined to the property of the notified person which stands attached under Section 3(3) of the Special Court Act. The property of M/s. Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. was attached, but M/s. Killick Nixon Pvt. Ltd. was not a notified party. Therefore, the Special Court could not entertain applications for recovery of dues from M/s. Killick Nixon Pvt. Ltd. The Special Court has the authority to deal with the property attached under the Act, but this does not extend to third parties not notified under Section 3(2).

Priority of Claims in the Distribution of Sale Proceeds:
Section 11(2) of the Special Court Act specifies the order of priority for discharging liabilities, giving precedence to taxes due to the government from the notified party. However, since M/s. Killick Nixon Pvt. Ltd. was not a notified party, its liabilities could not be prioritized under this section. The money realized from the auction of M/s. Killick Nixon Pvt. Ltd.'s property was deemed the property of M/s. Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd., the notified party, thus excluding the Income-tax Department's claim on M/s. Killick Nixon Pvt. Ltd.'s dues.

Applicability of Section 226(4) of the Income-tax Act:
Dr. R. G. Padia argued that under Section 226(4) of the Income-tax Act, the Tax Recovery Officer could claim the sale proceeds to discharge M/s. Killick Nixon Pvt. Ltd.'s tax liabilities. However, the court clarified that Section 226(4) applies only when the court has custody of money belonging to the assessee. Since the money from the auction was considered the property of M/s. Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd., the notified party, Section 226(4) was not applicable.

Overriding Effect of the Special Court Act Over Other Laws:
Section 13 of the Special Court Act states that its provisions override any inconsistent laws. The court referenced the Solidaire India Ltd. case, affirming that the Special Court Act prevails over the Income-tax Act. Thus, the Special Court Act's provisions, including the manner of dealing with attached properties and the order of priority in discharging liabilities, take precedence over the Income-tax Act.

Conclusion:
The Special Court correctly rejected the Tax Recovery Officer's applications, as M/s. Killick Nixon Pvt. Ltd. was not a notified party under the Special Court Act. The court's jurisdiction and the priority of claims were governed by the Special Court Act, which overrides the Income-tax Act. The Special Court's brief order was deemed sufficient, as the legal provisions were clear, and the appeals were dismissed with no costs.