Court quashes recovery notice and bank attachment, orders refund, petitioner to seek through representation to first respondent

The court quashed the recovery notice and bank attachment challenged by the petitioner, citing the absence of a valid assessment order due to a previous quashing and remand by the Statutory Appellate Authority. The court found the actions arbitrary and lacking proper consideration, directing the refund of the wrongfully withdrawn amount of Rs.3,54,000. The petitioner was granted permission to seek the refund through representation to the first respondent, who was instructed to decide on the matter within four weeks, ensuring fair consideration in line with the law.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to recovery notice and bank attachment without valid assessment order.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a recovery notice dated 06.02.2023 and a consequential bank attachment dated 22.02.2023 issued by the first respondent. The petitioner argued that since a Statutory Appellate Authority had quashed the assessment order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, the recovery of the amount through the impugned notices was not justified as there was no valid assessment order in place.

The petitioner's counsel highlighted the order of the Appellate Authority dated 22.02.2023, which quashed and remanded the assessment orders of 06.03.2020 and 26.09.2020 back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. It was contended that the recovery notice and bank attachment were arbitrary and lacked proper application of mind, as they were issued without a valid assessment order.

The Government Advocate representing the respondents did not dispute the petitioner's submissions. It was acknowledged that for the assessment year 2016-17, the assessment order was entirely quashed and remanded, while for the assessment year 2015-16, only a portion of the assessment order was quashed. The court noted that the attachment of the petitioner's bank account without prior notice was arbitrary and lacked proper consideration.

The petitioner's counsel further argued that an amount of Rs.3,54,000 had been erroneously withdrawn from the petitioner's bank account despite the quashing of the assessment orders. It was requested that the withdrawn amount be refunded by the respondents.

The court directed the quashing of the recovery notice and bank attachment, allowing the writ petition. The petitioner was granted permission to represent to the first respondent for the refund of the wrongfully withdrawn amount within two weeks. The first respondent was instructed to make a decision on the representation within four weeks, ensuring a fair consideration in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the recovery notice and bank attachment were deemed invalid, and the petitioner was given the opportunity to seek a refund of the wrongfully withdrawn amount through a representation to be considered by the first respondent within a specified timeframe.

---