Court quashes Tax Recovery Officer's order on property sale, allowing petitioner to contest attachment.

The court quashed the Tax Recovery Officer's order declaring the sale of property null and void due to attachment for income-tax arrears, as Rule 16 does not empower such declaration. The department can proceed against the defaulters' properties attached earlier, allowing the petitioner to contest the attachment under Rule 11(1) and seek recourse in Civil Court if the claim is rejected. The writ petition was allowed, the rule nisi made absolute, and no costs were awarded, with related motions closed.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to order of Tax Recovery Officer declaring sale of property null and void due to attachment for income-tax arrears. Interpretation of provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding recovery of tax through attachment and sale of property. Validity of Tax Recovery Officer's power to declare alienation null and void.

In this case, the petitioner challenged the order of the Tax Recovery Officer declaring the sale of a property null and void due to attachment for income-tax arrears. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically focusing on the procedure for recovery of tax through attachment and sale of the defaulter's immovable property. The court noted that Rule 11 provides for adjudication of claims to attachment or sale of property in execution of a certificate issued by the Tax Recovery Officer. Additionally, Rule 16 restricts the defaulter from dealing with the attached property without permission. The court highlighted Rule 16(2), stating that any private transfer of the attached property shall be void against all claims enforceable under the attachment.

The court further examined Rule 48, which deals with the attachment of immovable property, and Rule 50, which pertains to the proclamation of attachment. The impugned order was passed by the Tax Recovery Officer under Rule 16(1) and (2). The court concluded that Rule 16 does not empower the Tax Recovery Officer to declare the alienation null and void. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order but allowed the department to proceed against the defaulters' properties attached earlier. The petitioner was granted the right to approach the Tax Recovery Officer under Rule 11(1) to contest the attachment of the property. If the claim is rejected, the petitioner can seek recourse in the Civil Court to establish their rights. The writ petition was allowed, and the rule nisi was made absolute, with the department retaining the right to proceed against the property based on the previous attachment. No costs were awarded, and related motions were closed.

---