https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16696 A writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable to quash a garnishee notice under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act where the rival claims depended on disputed questions of fact. The petitioner claimed the deposits were his own and unrelated to the alleged defaulter, while the Revenue maintained that the defaulter was a partnership firm in which the petitioner was a partner and jointly liable. As the controversy required factual adjudication unsuitable for writ jurisdiction, the Court declined to examine the merits and left the petitioner to pursue the remedy available in law. The challenge to the notice therefore failed. en-us Mon, 05 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:42:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16696 A writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable to quash a garnishee notice under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act where the rival claims depended on disputed questions of fact. The petitioner claimed the deposits were his own and unrelated to the alleged defaulter, while the Revenue maintained that the defaulter was a partnership firm in which the petitioner was a partner and jointly liable. As the controversy required factual adjudication unsuitable for writ jurisdiction, the Court declined to examine the merits and left the petitioner to pursue the remedy available in law. The challenge to the notice therefore failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 05 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16696