Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite disputed questions of fact concerning the nature of the property and the commencement and validity of the tax recovery proceedings, and whether the petitioners had to work out their remedy before the Tax Recovery Officer under the statutory recovery machinery.
Analysis: The challenge to the recovery action depended on factual questions as to whether the property was ancestral or self-acquired, whether the gift deed was effective against the recovery, and whether the proceedings were barred by limitation. Such matters required evidence and investigation and were not fit for determination in writ proceedings. The statutory scheme under Rule 11 of Schedule II to the Income-tax Act provided a specific mechanism for a person claiming that attached property was not liable to attachment or sale to raise a claim before the Tax Recovery Officer, who could investigate the objection. In these circumstances, the existence of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy weighed against interference in writ jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for adjudication of these disputed issues, and the petitioners were directed to pursue the statutory claim procedure before the Tax Recovery Officer.