Division Bench dismisses petition against Income-tax Act attachment order, directs pursuit of alternative remedy

The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition challenging the attachment order under the Income-tax Act, 1961, citing the availability of an alternative remedy under rule 11 of the Second Schedule. The court held that once the alternative remedy was pursued, the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India could not be entertained. The Tax Recovery Officer issued an order maintaining status quo on the property and rent realization for a month. The court directed that any challenge to the Tax Recovery Officer's order could be pursued separately within a month if maintainable, with all parties instructed to act on a signed copy of the order.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to attachment order under Income-tax Act, 1961; Availability of alternative remedy under rule 11 of the Second Schedule; Maintainability of writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India despite availing alternative remedy; Communication of order by Tax Recovery Officer; Disposal of appeal and potential challenge to order of Tax Recovery Officer.

The judgment revolves around an appeal challenging an order dated April 24, 1997, regarding the attachment of a property for tax recovery under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners contended that the attachment order was void and contrary to the Act as they had purchased the property from a respondent. The learned single judge dismissed the petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy under rule 11 of the Second Schedule to challenge the attachment before the Tax Recovery Officer. The Division Bench, in an interim order, allowed the Revenue to proceed with considering objections under rule 11 but kept the appeal pending until the Tax Recovery Officer's decision. The question arose whether a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India could continue alongside the alternative remedy. The court held that once the alternative remedy was availed of, the writ petition could not be entertained under article 226. The court refrained from commenting on the merits due to the alternative remedy being pursued. The Tax Recovery Officer issued an order communicated to the petitioners, maintaining status quo on the property and rent realization for a month. The court disposed of the appeal and application with the directive that any challenge to the Tax Recovery Officer's order could be pursued separately within a month if maintainable. All parties were instructed to act on a signed copy of the order.

---