1971 (4) TMI 10 - HC - Income Tax

Whether the amount can be recovered by garnishing order in case there is dispute regarding liability to pay tax - till a final decision is rendered by the Income-tax Officer in exercise of the statutory powers, the recovery proceedings should be stayed and the tax recovery certificate issued may be called - any amount already paid by the petitioner or recovered by the revenue shall not in any way be paid over to the petitioner until a final decision is arrived at

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over payment between a limited company and Textool Company Ltd.
2. Legal obligations regarding income tax payment by garnishee.
3. Interpretation of section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court to intervene in the matter.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a dispute between a limited company and Textool Company Ltd. regarding the supply of machinery and unpaid dues. The petitioner claimed that certain machinery supplied by Textool Company Ltd. was defective and not in accordance with the contract terms, leading to a rejection of the goods. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice to the petitioner demanding payment of a sum owed by Textool Company Ltd. for income tax. The petitioner disputed the liability, citing the defects in the supplied machinery as the reason for non-payment. The High Court was called upon to interpret the legal obligations concerning the payment of income tax by the garnishee, in this case, the petitioner.

The court noted that the petitioner denied any liability to pay the sum claimed by the revenue, asserting that no amount was currently due to Textool Company Ltd. The petitioner contended that they had rejected the goods due to defects and legal obligations not fulfilled by Textool Company Ltd. The court emphasized the need for a thorough investigation into whether the petitioner's statements regarding non-payment were genuine or false. The court refrained from making a definitive ruling and directed the Income-tax Officer to conduct a detailed examination to determine the veracity of the petitioner's claims.

Regarding the interpretation of section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, the court highlighted the responsibility of the revenue to ascertain the accuracy of the garnishee's statements. The court stressed the importance of a fair inquiry to establish the truthfulness of the petitioner's assertions before taking any enforcement actions. The court directed the Income-tax Officer to hear both parties, evaluate all evidence presented, and make a decision based on the facts of the case.

In conclusion, the High Court intervened in the dispute to ensure a fair assessment of the petitioner's claims and directed the Income-tax Officer to conduct a thorough examination before proceeding with any recovery actions. The court emphasized the need for a comprehensive review of all relevant materials to determine the validity of the petitioner's contentions regarding non-payment of the disputed amount. Until a final decision was reached, the court ordered a stay on the recovery proceedings and the recall of the tax recovery certificate issued to the second respondent. The court also specified that any funds already paid or recovered should not be transferred until a final decision was made by the Income-tax Officer.