Personal knowledge affidavits, timely tax recovery objections, and lack of prejudice govern writ relief in garnishee proceedings.

A writ petition based on facts required a supporting affidavit from personal knowledge; an affidavit by a pairokar on information and belief was treated as insufficient to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Under section 226(3)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, an objection that the demand was not due had to be made on oath at the prescribed stage before the recovery certificate issued; a belated denial did not compel suspension of recovery once the certificate machinery had begun. Non-compliance with the Second Schedule notice requirements was treated as a procedural irregularity where the assessee had actual prior knowledge and no prejudice was shown. The availability of an alternative statutory appeal also weighed against writ relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the supporting affidavit was not based on the deponent's personal knowledge. (ii) Whether an objection under section 226(3)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had to be made on oath before the recovery certificate was issued, and what was the effect of a belated denial. (iii) Whether non-compliance with rules 2 and 3 of the Second Schedule vitiated the recovery proceedings or was merely procedural. (iv) Whether the existence of an alternate remedy justified refusal of writ relief.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the supporting affidavit was not based on the deponent's personal knowledge.

Analysis: The writ petition depended upon facts which, under the court rules governing affidavits, had to be sworn from personal knowledge. The supporting affidavit was filed by a pairokar and was largely based on information and belief rather than direct knowledge. In writ proceedings, the factual foundation must be properly laid, and the absence of a proper affidavit goes to the root of the invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petition was not properly supported and was liable to fail on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether an objection under section 226(3)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had to be made on oath before the recovery certificate was issued, and what was the effect of a belated denial.

Analysis: Section 226(3)(vi) requires a person served with a notice to object by a statement on oath if the sum demanded is not due. That safeguard operates before the stage when the person is treated as an assessee in default and a recovery certificate is forwarded under section 226(3)(x). Once the certificate has issued and the machinery under sections 222 to 225 is set in motion, the Income-tax Officer's power is confined to withdrawal or correction under section 224(2), and a late objection does not revive the statutory right to insist on an automatic stay.

Conclusion: The belated denial did not compel the Income-tax Officer to stop the recovery proceedings under section 226(3)(vi).

Issue (iii): Whether non-compliance with rules 2 and 3 of the Second Schedule vitiated the recovery proceedings or was merely procedural.

Analysis: The court treated the notice provisions in the Second Schedule as safeguards intended to afford the defaulter time to comply. Although the record did not show strict observance of the full 15-day formal notice requirement, the petitioner had actual knowledge of the demand well in advance and no prejudice was demonstrated. In these circumstances, the defect, if any, was not treated as fatal to the recovery action.

Conclusion: The alleged irregularity under the Second Schedule did not warrant quashing the recovery proceedings.

Issue (iv): Whether the existence of an alternate remedy justified refusal of writ relief.

Analysis: An appeal was available under the Second Schedule against the warrant of attachment. Where a statutory remedy exists, especially in a matter turning partly on disputed facts, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction need not be exercised.

Conclusion: The availability of an alternate remedy supported refusal of writ relief.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on the combined grounds of defective support, untimely objection, and absence of prejudice from the procedural complaint, and the recovery proceedings were allowed to stand.

Ratio Decidendi: In garnishee recovery under section 226 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, an objection denying liability must be made on oath within the prescribed stage before a recovery certificate issues, and a later affidavit does not as of right compel the Income-tax Officer to suspend recovery or invalidate proceedings where no prejudice from procedural irregularity is shown.

---