Revenue attachment of property in another's name may proceed, with ownership disputes left to statutory objections or civil suit.

Where the revenue asserts that property standing in a trust's name belongs to a defaulting assessee, the Tax Recovery Officer may proceed with attachment on that basis, while the ostensible owner must pursue the statutory objection procedure under the Second Schedule or a civil suit. The ownership dispute is a factual issue not suitable for determination in writ proceedings under Article 226. A direction requiring attached debtors to deposit amounts into the Government Treasury under the income-tax recovery process was also within jurisdiction, with refund available if the attachment is later displaced in appropriate proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tax Recovery Officer had jurisdiction to attach property standing in the name of a trust when the income-tax department asserted that the property ly belonged to the defaulter. (ii) Whether the direction to the attached debtors to deposit the amounts in the Government Treasury was without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the Tax Recovery Officer had jurisdiction to attach property standing in the name of a trust when the income-tax department asserted that the property ly belonged to the defaulter.

Analysis: The department's case was that the attached assets were only ostensibly in the name of the trust and in substance belonged to the defaulting assessee. In such a situation, the Tax Recovery Officer was competent to proceed on the basis of the department's assertion and attach the property, while the ostensible owner retained the statutory right to object before the Tax Recovery Officer under the Second Schedule and, if necessary, to pursue a civil suit. The dispute whether the property belonged to the trust or to the defaulter was a question of fact not fit for determination in writ proceedings under Article 226.

Conclusion: The attachment was not shown to be without jurisdiction, and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the direction to the attached debtors to deposit the amounts in the Government Treasury was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The direction was issued in recovery proceedings under Section 222 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. That provision empowered recovery of arrears from the assessee in the manner adopted, and the affected parties would be entitled to refund if the attachment were later displaced in appropriate proceedings. No specific challenge to this direction had been raised in the writ petition.

Conclusion: The direction was within jurisdiction and did not warrant interference.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition did not disclose any ground for interference under Articles 226 and 227, as the attachment and consequential recovery steps were left to the statutory remedies and factual adjudication outside writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the revenue asserts that property standing in another's name really belongs to the defaulter, the Tax Recovery Officer may proceed with attachment and the rival claim must be worked out through the statutory objection mechanism or civil suit, not by writ adjudication of disputed facts.

---