Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, after service of notice under rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, a civil court is barred by rule 16(1) from issuing process in execution against the defaulter's property even before any actual attachment under rule 3.
Analysis: Rule 16(1) first disables the defaulter from dealing with any property belonging to him after service of notice under rule 2 and then bars a civil court from issuing any process against such property in execution of a money decree. Rule 16(2) separately deals with the consequences of an attachment already made. The different phraseology used in the two sub-rules shows that the bar in sub-rule (1) is tied to the disability created by the notice itself and is not dependent on prior attachment. The scheme of rules 2, 3, 4 and 16 preserves the property for tax recovery and avoids conflict between private execution and the revenue recovery process.
Conclusion: Actual attachment under rule 3 is not necessary for the bar under rule 16(1) to operate, and a civil court cannot issue process against such property once notice under rule 2 has been served.
Ratio Decidendi: Service of notice under rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, by itself creates a statutory disability on the defaulter's property that bars civil execution against that property until the revenue recovery process is completed or cancelled.