Court Rules Attachment Illegal, Quashes Recovery Certificate

The court found the attachment under section 226(3) to be illegal as the partnership firm did not owe any money to the association of persons. Consequently, the certificate issued for recovery was deemed invalid, leading to the court making the rule absolute and issuing a writ quashing the certificate dated January 18, 1974, for the recovery of the tax amount. The petitioner was awarded costs and advocate's fee.

---

---

Issues:
Validity of attachment under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act and the validity of the certificate issued for recovery of the tax amount.

Analysis:
The case involved a partnership firm, where one of the partners was also a member of an association of persons called "Shanmugam Textiles" that was assessed for tax liability. The Income-tax Officer attached a deposit belonging to the partner with the partnership firm under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act to recover the tax amount due from the association of persons. The key question was the validity of this attachment and the subsequent certificate issued for recovery.

Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act allows the Income-tax Officer to require any person holding money for or on account of the assessee to pay the amount due. However, for the attachment to be valid, the money must be due or become due to the assessee. In this case, the partnership firm did not owe any money to the association of persons but might have owed money to the partner who was a member of the association. This fact alone was deemed insufficient to invoke the provisions of section 226(3).

The court held that since the partnership firm did not owe any money to the association of persons, the attachment was illegal, and consequently, the certificate issued for recovery of the tax amount was also invalid. As a result, the court made the rule absolute and issued a writ quashing the certificate dated January 18, 1974, which was issued for the recovery of the tax amount.

In conclusion, the court found the attachment under section 226(3) to be illegal due to the lack of money owed by the partnership firm to the association of persons. Therefore, the certificate issued for recovery was declared invalid, and the petitioner was awarded costs along with advocate's fee.

---