Prior disposal of objections is mandatory before coercive income-tax recovery can proceed under restraint proceedings.

Objections to a restraint order in income-tax recovery proceedings had to be decided before coercive recovery could continue. The Tax Recovery Officer had not applied his mind to the petitioner's objections and had not disposed of them at all, so proceeding with recovery was impermissible. A technical defect in the heading or provision cited for the objections was immaterial where the objections otherwise fell within the scope of the relevant rule. The operative requirement was prior consideration and disposal of the objections before further recovery steps.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tax Recovery Officer could proceed with recovery without first disposing of the petitioner's objections to the restraint order.

Analysis: The objections filed by the petitioner challenged the restraint order issued in recovery proceedings under Rule 26(1)(iii) of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. The record showed that the Tax Recovery Officer had not applied his mind to the objections and had not disposed of them at all. A merely technical objection that the objections were not headed under the correct provision was held to be of no consequence if the objections otherwise fell within the scope of the provision. The officer was required to decide the objections before continuing with coercive recovery steps.

Conclusion: The petitioner's objection had to be decided first, and recovery could not proceed until that was done.

---