Statutory claim procedure bars direct writ challenge to property attachment under income-tax recovery law.

A writ petition challenging attachment of immovable property under the income-tax recovery scheme was held premature because Rule 11 of the Second Schedule provides a specific claim-and-objection procedure. Where the grievance is that the property is not liable to attachment or sale, the Tax Recovery Officer must first investigate the claim under that rule, and the claimant may then pursue a civil suit if necessary. The availability of this statutory remedy meant direct recourse to writ jurisdiction was not maintainable, so the petition was rejected with liberty to invoke Rule 11.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging attachment of immovable property under the income-tax recovery scheme is maintainable when Rule 11 of the Second Schedule provides a specific claim and objection mechanism.

Analysis: Section 222 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Rule 48 of the Second Schedule permit recovery by attachment of the defaulter's immovable property. Rule 11 of the Second Schedule specifically provides that where any claim or objection is made to attachment or sale on the ground that the property is not liable to such attachment or sale, the Tax Recovery Officer must investigate the claim. The rule also allows the claimant, after such determination, to pursue a civil suit. Since the petitioner's grievance was that the property was not liable to attachment, the proper course was to invoke the statutory claim procedure before the Tax Recovery Officer rather than directly approach the writ court. The existence of that remedy made the writ petition premature and not maintainable.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was rejected, with liberty to pursue the remedy under Rule 11 of the Second Schedule.

---