Court dismisses review petitions challenging judgment on partnership firms vs. Income Tax Department; parties advised to seek proper forums for disputes.

The Court dismissed review petitions challenging a judgment in two writ petitions involving partnership firms and the Income Tax Department. The petitioners claimed factual errors in the judgment, arguing that properties were attached before being mortgaged, rendering the mortgages void. The Court held that factual corrections were not grounds for review and that disputed facts should be addressed in proper forums. It rejected contentions on charge priority and the Department's absence, advising parties to seek adjudication in appropriate tribunals. The review applications were found meritless, and parties were directed to present arguments before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for resolution.

---

---

Issues:
1. Review petitions against a common judgment dated 29.06.2022 in W.P.(C) No.26500 of 2021 & W.P.(C) No.27775 of 2021.

Analysis:
I. Brief facts in RVWPET Nos.156 & 173 of 2022:
The review petitioners sought a review of the judgment as they were aggrieved by the decision against them in the Writ Petitions. The petitioner in RVWPET No.156 was a partnership firm involved in a case where the Tax Recovery Officer-1 claimed not to have been impleaded despite a pending application. The judgment was passed against the petitioner.

II. Brief facts in RVWPET Nos.157 & 174 of 2022:
Similarly, in RVWPET No.157, another partnership firm was involved, and the Tax Recovery Officer-1 claimed non-impleadment despite a pending request. The judgment was also decided against this petitioner.

The review petitioners argued that factual errors had crept into the judgment. They contended that properties were attached by the Income Tax Department before being mortgaged to the Bank, rendering the mortgage void under Section 281 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. They raised issues regarding the auction sale of properties and the timing of attachments by the Income Tax Department.

The Income Tax Department argued that the properties were attached before being mortgaged to the Bank, making the mortgage void. They emphasized that the factual correctness of the assertions regarding the date of mortgage and attachment needed further inquiry.

The Court, after hearing arguments, held that corrections to factual aspects did not warrant a review of the judgment. It emphasized that the right to challenge actions by the Bank or District Magistrate remained with the petitioners. The Court rejected contentions regarding the priority of charge and the absence of the Income Tax Department in the proceedings.

The main argument centered around the properties being mortgaged after attachment by the Income Tax Department, potentially rendering the mortgages void. The Court ruled that such serious questions of disputed facts could not be decided in writ jurisdiction and parties should seek adjudication in the appropriate forums.

In conclusion, the Court found no merit in the review applications and dismissed them, allowing parties to raise their arguments before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for proper adjudication.

---