TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Revenue Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's challenge to attachment and sale of property for recovery of income-tax arrears, or whether the proper remedy was a claim petition before the Collector under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Analysis: The property of a person claiming not to be the defaulter was attached pursuant to a certificate issued for recovery of income-tax arrears under section 46 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The correct course for such a claimant was to file a claim petition before the Collector under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where the claim would be summarily enquired into and decided, with the further right of suit preserved for the unsuccessful party. By approaching the Revenue Appellate Tribunal directly, the respondent bypassed the statutory mechanism and the Tribunal assumed the function reserved to the Collector.
Conclusion: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the claim, and its order cancelling the attachment and sale proclamation was quashed.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded because the challenge to the attachment had to be pursued before the Collector under the execution claim procedure, not before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: Where property is attached in recovery proceedings against another person, a third party's remedy is the statutory claim procedure under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and a tribunal cannot assume the Collector's jurisdiction to adjudicate that claim.
TaxTMI 
