https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11174 The court held that the petitioner failed to meet the parameters of Section 226 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and had no defense against the Tax Recovery Officer's claim for recovery of dues. It was determined that garnishee proceedings could not be initiated against a creditor of a garnishee under Section 226(3). The petitioner's defense based on doubts raised by the Assessing Officer was rejected, emphasizing the obligation to the creditor reflected in the balance sheet. The court upheld the petitioner's obligation to pay interest as per the balance sheet and directed compliance with previous court directives. The Tax Recovery Officer was instructed to issue a notice for attachment of debt to a third party. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, allowing the petitioner to file a fresh statement on oath if desired. en-us Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11174 The court held that the petitioner failed to meet the parameters of Section 226 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and had no defense against the Tax Recovery Officer's claim for recovery of dues. It was determined that garnishee proceedings could not be initiated against a creditor of a garnishee under Section 226(3). The petitioner's defense based on doubts raised by the Assessing Officer was rejected, emphasizing the obligation to the creditor reflected in the balance sheet. The court upheld the petitioner's obligation to pay interest as per the balance sheet and directed compliance with previous court directives. The Tax Recovery Officer was instructed to issue a notice for attachment of debt to a third party. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, allowing the petitioner to file a fresh statement on oath if desired. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11174