Income Tax Department's fourth provisional attachment order under Section 281B quashed for being issued mechanically without valid reasons

The HC quashed the fourth provisional attachment order u/s 281B of the Income Tax Act, finding it was issued mechanically without valid reasons. The court held that repeated attachment orders on properties mortgaged to banks (first charge holders) would prevent the petitioner from obtaining working capital loans, affecting business operations and 5000 employees. The court directed the petitioner to file a modification application within one week, and ordered the IT Department to consider lifting the attachment to allow working capital facilities while ensuring funds are used only for business purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of issuing multiple fresh attachment orders under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act.
2. Impact of attachment orders on the petitioners' business operations and banking facilities.
3. Consideration of the interests of the petitioners' employees and the overall welfare of the State.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality of Multiple Fresh Attachment Orders
The petitioners challenged the repeated issuance of fresh attachment orders by the respondent-Department under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act. The petitioners argued that the respondent-Department issued fresh attachment orders for the fourth time without providing valid reasons, which is against the statutory requirements. The petitioners contended that each provisional attachment order should be in force for only six months and can be extended up to two years with proper justification. The respondent-Department, however, maintained that they have the authority to issue fresh attachment orders multiple times within the statutory period to protect the interest of the revenue.

Issue 2: Impact on Business Operations and Banking Facilities
The petitioners highlighted that the attachment orders adversely affected their business operations. The attached properties were mortgaged with various banks for loans, and the attachment hindered the banks from providing further working capital, jeopardizing the petitioners' business. The petitioners emphasized that the banks, as the first charge holders, were perplexed and unable to renew loan agreements, potentially leading to the closure of the business and loss of jobs for 5000 workers.

Issue 3: Interests of Employees and State Welfare
The petitioners argued that the attachment orders, if not lifted, would have a cascading effect, leading to the closure of their business and rendering 5000 workers jobless, which would affect their families and the overall welfare of the State. The court noted that the respondent-Department should act in a manner that protects the interest of the revenue without causing unnecessary hardships to the petitioners or affecting the welfare of the workers.

Court's Observations and Directions:
The court observed that the respondent-Department issued the attachment orders in a routine and mechanical manner without valid reasons. The court emphasized that the respondent-Department should consider the running business activities of the petitioners, the interests of the banks as first charge holders, and the welfare of the workers before issuing such orders. The court directed the petitioners to file a modification application to modify the provisional attachment order dated 16.08.2023. The respondent-Department was instructed to consider the modification applications and pass orders to lift the attachment to enable the petitioners to avail working capital facilities. The petitioners were also directed to file an affidavit/undertaking to ensure that the funds allotted by the banks are utilized for working capital purposes.

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the writ petitions with the above directions, ensuring that the petitioners' business operations and the welfare of their employees are not adversely affected by the attachment orders. The court emphasized the need for the respondent-Department to act in a manner that protects the interest of the revenue while considering the broader implications on the petitioners' business and the welfare of the State.

---