https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7859 Section 226(3) operates only as a garnishee mechanism against a person from whom money is due, or may become due, to the named assessee, or who holds money for that assessee. It does not authorise notices to a petitioner's debtors for recovery of another assessee's tax liability merely because the petitioner is alleged to be benami for that other person. On this construction, notices issued to recover dues said to belong to Dunichand Sons & Co. from persons alleged to owe money to P. K. Trading Company were without statutory jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The constitutional validity of section 226(3) was not examined because the matter was decided on statutory interpretation. en-us Fri, 16 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7859 Section 226(3) operates only as a garnishee mechanism against a person from whom money is due, or may become due, to the named assessee, or who holds money for that assessee. It does not authorise notices to a petitioner's debtors for recovery of another assessee's tax liability merely because the petitioner is alleged to be benami for that other person. On this construction, notices issued to recover dues said to belong to Dunichand Sons & Co. from persons alleged to owe money to P. K. Trading Company were without statutory jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The constitutional validity of section 226(3) was not examined because the matter was decided on statutory interpretation. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 16 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7859