Court affirms Tax Recovery Officer's order, dismissing objections, emphasizing admitted liability for enforcement.

The court upheld the Tax Recovery Officer's order, dismissing the petitioner's objections. It found the TRO's order valid under Section 226(3)(x) of the Income Tax Act, determining the petitioner's liability towards the respondent amidst ongoing litigation. The court emphasized that the TRO's jurisdiction does not extend to adjudicating on disputed debts and that the enforceability of the debt was not affected by potential future outcomes of the litigation. The court concluded that the admitted liability was adequate for the TRO to proceed, affirming the order and rejecting the petitioner's contentions.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the order under Section 226(3)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Determination of liability of the petitioner (EMGF) towards the fourth respondent (EHTPL) amidst ongoing litigation.
3. Jurisdiction and power of the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) under Section 226(3) of the Act.
4. Adjudication on disputed debt by TRO.
5. Impact of ongoing litigation on the enforceability of the debt.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the order under Section 226(3)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The petitioner, EMGF, challenged the order issued by the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO), Hyderabad, requiring it to pay Rs. 32,82,79,787/- alleged to be due from EHTPL, the assessee-in-default. The court examined whether the TRO's order was valid under Section 226(3)(x) of the Act. The TRO, Hyderabad, declared EMGF as a defaulter and directed it to remit the amount due to EHTPL, rejecting EMGF's objections.

2. Determination of liability of the petitioner (EMGF) towards the fourth respondent (EHTPL) amidst ongoing litigation:

EMGF argued that due to ongoing litigation, the integrated project had come to a standstill, and no collections were made, thus no money was owed to EHTPL. The court noted that EMGF had admitted liability to EHTPL in its books of account, indicating an enforceable debt. The court found that the potential future cancellation of the agreement due to litigation was too distant a contingency to affect the present enforceability of the debt.

3. Jurisdiction and power of the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) under Section 226(3) of the Act:

The court examined the jurisdiction of the TRO under Section 226(3) of the Act, which allows the TRO to proceed against a garnishee only when the debt is admitted or indisputable. The court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Surinder Nath Kapoor v. Union of India and this Court's decision in AAA Portfolios Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, emphasizing that the TRO cannot adjudicate on disputed debts.

4. Adjudication on disputed debt by TRO:

The court determined that the TRO, Hyderabad, in its attempt to discern the falsity in EMGF's affidavit, had actually adjudicated on the question of a disputed debt, thus exceeding its jurisdiction. The court held that any inquiry requiring elaborate reasoning or evidence could not be considered a facial determination of falsity.

5. Impact of ongoing litigation on the enforceability of the debt:

The court found that the ongoing litigation did not negate the present enforceability of the debt. The TRO's observations that the consequence of APIIC revoking consent could be considered "force majeure," thus resulting in the EMGF debt continuing to be owed to EHTPL, were consistent with the court's reasoning. The court reiterated that the potential future outcomes of the litigation were too distant to affect the present debt.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the TRO's order and rejecting EMGF's objections. The court emphasized that the existence of an admitted or indisputable liability was sufficient for the TRO to proceed under Section 226(3) of the Act, and the potential future outcomes of the litigation did not affect the present enforceability of the debt.

---