Statutory claim procedure governs disputed tax recovery attachments; writ intervention is unwarranted where Rule 11 applies.

A writ challenge to attachment and proposed recovery action was found inappropriate where the property was already under income-tax recovery attachment and title was disputed. The text states that Rule 11 of the Second Schedule provides the statutory procedure for the Tax Recovery Officer to investigate claims or objections to attachment or sale, hear both sides, and decide ownership in accordance with law. The impugned communication was treated as only a notice, and the claimant was directed to pursue the prescribed recovery remedy rather than writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's challenge to the attachment and proposed recovery action could be entertained in writ jurisdiction, or whether the proper course was investigation by the Tax Recovery Officer under Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The property was already under attachment in recovery proceedings for an outstanding income-tax demand. In a situation where title to the property was disputed between the petitioner and the third respondent, the Second Schedule provides a specific mechanism under Rule 11 for the Tax Recovery Officer to investigate claims or objections to attachment or sale. The Court noted that the impugned communication was only a notice and that the Tax Recovery Officer had to consider the claim of ownership, hear both sides, and decide the matter in accordance with law. The Court also directed that the authority proceed with an open mind and after prior notice to the petitioner and the third respondent.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not allowed on merits and the petitioner was relegated to the remedy before the Tax Recovery Officer under Rule 11.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the recovery notice did not succeed in writ jurisdiction, and the dispute over entitlement to the attached property was left to be examined in the statutory recovery process.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory remedy exists for adjudication of claims or objections to attachment or sale of property in tax recovery proceedings, writ intervention is unwarranted and the claimant must pursue the prescribed procedure before the Tax Recovery Officer.

---