Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1972 (12) TMI 31

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y order of the nature scrutinised by me ought not to have been passed. In this view, I am of the opinion that there has not been a full adjudication as required under law by the respondent and, therefore, there is an error apparent in the orders passed by the respondent. - - - - - Dated:- 12-12-1972 - Judge(s) : RAMAPRASADA RAO. JUDGMENT RAMAPRASADA RAO J-The petitioner in each of these writ petitions is aggrieved by the summary disposal given by the respondent as the Tax Recovery Officer functioning under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The relevant facts are as follows: In connection with the arrears of income-tax due from Thiru K. Shanmugham Chettiar and his brother, a Hindu undivided family, certain properties, which, acco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itions as well : "The claim petition read above was perused and the claimant was heard in person. The reasons put forth by the claimant are held untenable and the petition is rejected." It is to remove this order by the issue of a rule under article 226 that these writ petitions have been filed. The relevant provisions which are necessary for the purposes of this case may be immediately noticed to appreciate the contentions of the parties. Under section 222 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the Income-tax Officer concerned, in case he is satisfied that there is an assessee in default or an assessee who is deemed to be in default in making a payment of tax, can forward to the Tax Recovery Officer a certif .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d and he is mandatorily, required to adjourn any sale of such attached property, if by then a claim or objection has been preferred, by a third party in accordance, with law. After postponing such sale the Tax Recovery Officer is bound to act judicially as is seen from rule 82 of Schedule II to the Act. This rule says that every Tax Recovery Officer acting under this Schedule shall in the discharge of his functions under this Schedule be deemed to be acting judicially within the meaning of the Judicial Protection Act. Under rule 83, the said officer has all the powers of a civil court for purposes of receiving evidence, administering oaths, enforcing attendance of witnesses and compelling production of documents. Rules 86 and 87 provide for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ead in conjunction with the nature of the powers conferred upon the Tax Recovery Officer, which, as already stated by me, reflect the powers of an ordinary civil court, obviously implies that there must be a full, fair and an adequate enquiry. Investigation is not an empty formality but a quasi-judicial process involving a reasoned decision by the statutory functionary after hearing the affected party and the revenue (in the instant case), adequately and fully. It has to apply its mind on the subject-matter, which application should be reflected in the order which it may pass ultimately. The reason for the decision should be apparent on the face of the record in the instant cases, the Tax Recovery Officer has made a non-speaking order, and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... realistic order ultimately after hearing the parties. It is said that though evidence was taken, the order is hopelessly non-speaking. I agree. In a case like this, where rights of parties are to be adjudicated by a quasi-judicial tribunal, a cursory or perfunctory order of the nature scrutinised by me ought not to have been passed. In this view, I am of the opinion that there has not been a full adjudication as required under law by the respondent and, therefore, there is an error apparent in the orders passed by the respondent. The writ petitions are allowed. The respondent is at liberty to restore the claim petitions on his file and pass an order in accordance with law after hearing the parties in full after investigating the matter purp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates