2021 (6) TMI 294 - HC - Income Tax

Attachment order - recovery proceedings - HELD THAT - Letter addressed to the Sub-Registrar, Ponneri Taluk, Ponneri, Tiruvellur District, per se, would not provide cause of action for filing the present writ petition. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved with reference to certain contents in the letter, the petitioner is bound to approach he Competent Authority and submit explanations, objections or documents in order to establish or defend his case. This Court cannot adjudicate such disputed facts in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. All such factual disputes are to be adjudicated and resolved before the Competent Authority. Under Rule 11, Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, provides remedy to the aggrieved person and therefore, the petitioner has to avail the remedy by approaching the Authorities Competent in the manner known to law. The impugned letter was issued by the Tax Recovery Officer to the Sub Registrar, Ponneri Taluk Ponneri, Tiruvallur District, seeking certain details, the same would not provide a cause of action for the purpose of moving the present writ petition nor this Court adjudicate all such disputed facts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to attachment notice dated 22.09.2009 in T.R.No.43-C/05-06 & 49-Cof 06-07.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Remedies available to aggrieved persons under Rule 11, Schedule II of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief to quash an attachment notice dated 22.09.2009 issued by the Tax Recovery Officer. The impugned letter directed the Sub Registrar to furnish certain details and prohibited alienation of properties attached by the Income Tax Department. The High Court held that the letter itself did not provide a cause of action for the writ petition. If aggrieved by the contents, the petitioner should approach the Competent Authority with explanations or objections. The Court cannot adjudicate disputed facts in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner must avail remedies under the Income Tax Act before the Competent Authority.

2. The Court emphasized that it cannot adjudicate disputed facts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The jurisdiction of the High Court is limited in writ proceedings, and all factual disputes must be resolved before the Competent Authority. The Income Tax Act provides remedies for aggrieved persons under Rule 11, Schedule II, and the petitioner must follow the legal procedure to address grievances. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority with evidence or documents for redressal.

3. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the impugned letter did not provide a cause of action for the petition. The petitioner was directed to seek redressal through the Competent Authority by following the prescribed legal procedures. The Court clarified that it cannot adjudicate disputed facts and that the petitioner must utilize the remedies available under the Income Tax Act. The dismissal of the writ petition was accompanied by a decision of no order as to costs. Additionally, a connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed as a consequence of the main petition being rejected.