Court quashes tax notice, directs recovery from personal properties, clarifies bank's liability.

The Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned Notice dated 25.07.2005, and directed the Revenue Department to recover any outstanding dues from respondent no.4's personal properties. The Court clarified the liquidator's role in the recovery process, emphasizing that the petitioner-Bank was not liable for the tax demands and that respondent no.4 remained responsible for the significant tax arrears as of 31.03.2013.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of the Notice dated 25.07.2005 issued by respondent no.1 to respondent no.2.
2. Legal authority to recover outstanding dues from the petitioner.
3. Applicability of Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Role of liquidator in the recovery proceedings.
5. Liability of respondent no.4 in the tax demand.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the Notice dated 25.07.2005, arguing that respondent no.1 did not obtain permission from the Registrar before taking action against the petitioner-Bank, which was under liquidation. The petitioner contended that the Notice was unlawful as no prior notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act had been issued before. The petitioner's counsel emphasized that respondent no.1 should recover dues from respondent no.4's assets rather than targeting the petitioner-Bank.

2. The Revenue Department, represented by Mr. KM Parikh, asserted that the petitioner-Bank defaulted in paying the tax demands despite previous recovery attempts. It was argued that the petitioner-Bank was obligated to settle the outstanding tax dues as an assessee in default under Section 226(3). The Revenue Department highlighted the continuous arrears and emphasized the need to protect its interests by recovering the dues from respondent no.4 and his group of companies.

3. Respondent no.4's counsel, Mr. B.S. Patel, contended that the petitioner-Bank was discharged from liability under Section 226(10) of the Act as it received a prior Notice under Section 226(3). Respondent no.4 argued against its liability to pay the tax dues and suggested that the petition should be dismissed based on the legal provisions.

4. The Court considered the arguments from all parties and previous orders. It noted the payments made by the petitioner-Bank towards respondent no.4's tax dues, which were appropriated by the IT Department. The Court highlighted that respondent no.4 still owed a significant amount in tax arrears as of 31.03.2013. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned Notice, and directed the IT Department to recover any dues from respondent no.4's personal properties, clarifying the liquidator's role in the process.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the key issues raised in the legal dispute, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments presented by each party and the Court's final decision.

---