Instalment orders limit tax recovery attachments to amounts as they fall due, while writ jurisdiction remains available despite statutory bars.

Where income-tax arrears were allowed to be paid by instalments, the phrase "amount due" in Section 46(5A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was read as the instalments as they became payable, not the full assessed demand; an attachment demanding immediate payment of the entire arrear was therefore inconsistent and had to be revised. Section 67 did not bar Article 226 relief because the constitutional writ power was treated as overriding the statutory good-faith protection. Section 33A also did not provide an adequate alternative remedy, as it was discretionary and not shown to be equally effective, so writ relief remained available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after instalments were granted for payment of income-tax arrears, the expression "amount due" in Section 46(5A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 referred to the entire assessed demand or only to the instalments as they became payable; (ii) whether Section 67 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 barred the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (iii) whether the revision power under Section 33A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 provided an adequate alternative remedy so as to deny relief.

Issue (i): Whether, after instalments were granted for payment of income-tax arrears, the expression "amount due" in Section 46(5A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 referred to the entire assessed demand or only to the instalments as they became payable.

Analysis: The attachment under Section 46(5A) could operate only on money that was presently due or would become due to the assessee. Once the Certificate Officer permitted payment by monthly instalments, the assessee's obligation, so long as that order stood, was confined to the instalment amounts. A notice requiring the employer to pay the whole outstanding sum at once would neutralise the instalment order and create an inconsistent position between the certificate proceedings and the attachment proceedings. The phrase "amount due" was therefore read as the amount payable from time to time under the instalment order.

Conclusion: The expression "amount due" meant the instalments as and when they became payable, not the whole assessed arrear, and the attachment had to be revised accordingly.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 67 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 barred the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Section 67 protected acts done in good faith under the Act, but it could not control the constitutional power conferred by Article 226. The constitutional power was treated as overriding and not subject to restrictions imposed by the Income-tax Act. The existence of a statutory bar did not exclude judicial review where the impugned action was outside the powers conferred by the Act or otherwise open to correction under the constitutional writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Section 67 did not bar the application under Article 226, and the constitutional remedy remained available.

Issue (iii): Whether the revision power under Section 33A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 provided an adequate alternative remedy so as to deny relief.

Analysis: The remedy under Section 33A was discretionary, not one enforceable as of right, and was not shown to be equally convenient, beneficial, and effective. On the facts, the attachment had been made earlier, while the instalment order came later, and the proposed revision would also have faced the one-year limitation. The statutory remedy was therefore not an effective alternative that would preclude writ relief.

Conclusion: Section 33A did not furnish an adequate alternative remedy to bar relief under Article 226.

Final Conclusion: The impugned attachment could not stand in its original form after the instalment order, and the Income-tax Officer was required to revise it so as to conform to the instalment arrangement; the petitioner was entitled to relief and costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory recovery notice under Section 46(5A) would conflict with a valid instalment order governing the time when tax arrears become payable, the notice must be confined to the instalments as they fall due, and constitutional writ jurisdiction is not excluded by a statutory good-faith bar or by a merely discretionary and ineffective alternative remedy.

---