Income-tax recovery attaches only assessee property, and a later garnishee execution may continue earlier proceedings if attachment subsists.

Recovery under the Income-tax Act attaches only the property of the assessee-defaulter, and a prohibitory order under the Second Schedule cannot extend beyond that limited scope. The Revenue's claim could therefore operate only against the firm's tax dues, not against the partners' individual liabilities on the material stated, and the decree-based charge was invalid only to that extent. A later execution request for payment of an amount already attached and retained by the garnishee was treated as a continuation of the earlier execution, not a fresh claim. On that footing, limitation did not bar the application and the attached amount remained realisable after satisfaction of the Revenue's limited claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Income-tax Department could enforce the prohibitory order against the entire amount payable by the garnishee and override claims arising from decrees and the partners' individual tax liabilities; (ii) Whether the subsequent execution application filed by the decree-holder was barred by limitation or was merely a continuation of the earlier attachment-based execution.

Issue (i): Whether the Income-tax Department could enforce the prohibitory order against the entire amount payable by the garnishee and override claims arising from decrees and the partners' individual tax liabilities.

Analysis: Under the scheme of recovery under the Income-tax Act, recovery proceeds against the property of the defaulter-assessee. A prohibitory order under the Second Schedule can operate only upon property belonging to the assessee and lying in the custody of a court or public officer. The amount in question was due to the firm, and not to the partners personally. The Department therefore had priority only to the extent of tax dues recoverable from the firm. The partners' personal tax liabilities could not be enforced against the firm's assets on the material on record. The charge created under the decrees was also not void in entirety, but only to the extent of the Revenue's legitimate claim.

Conclusion: The Department's claim succeeded only partly. The prohibitory order was effective only for the firm's tax dues, not for the partners' individual liabilities, and the decree-based charge was void only to that limited extent.

Issue (ii): Whether the subsequent execution application filed by the decree-holder was barred by limitation or was merely a continuation of the earlier attachment-based execution.

Analysis: The later application did not introduce a fresh independent claim; it sought payment of the amount already attached and retained in the hands of the garnishee. The earlier attachment continued to subsist, and the application was in substance one for a direction to pay the attached amount under garnishee procedure. Treating it as a fresh execution petition was therefore incorrect on the facts.

Conclusion: The application was not barred by limitation and was maintainable as a continuation of the earlier execution proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed to the extent it sought recovery against the firm's assets beyond the firm's own tax dues, while the decree-holder was entitled to realise the earlier attached amount after satisfaction of the Department's dues against the firm.

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery attachment under the Income-tax Act reaches only the property of the assessee-defaulter, and a subsequent execution request seeking release of an already attached amount may be treated as a continuation of the earlier execution where the attachment still subsists.

---