https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39986 A refund writ under Article 226 was held maintainable despite non-joinder of the Income-tax Officer, Bombay, because the remittance to that officer was only an interdepartmental adjustment and did not amount to legal discharge of the refund obligation. Since the deceased partner's share in the dissolved firm had not been ascertained, no specific amount could be identified as his asset. On that basis, the officer at Bombay was treated as a garnishee at most, making him a proper party but not a necessary party to the refund proceedings. en-us Fri, 24 Sep 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:03:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39986 A refund writ under Article 226 was held maintainable despite non-joinder of the Income-tax Officer, Bombay, because the remittance to that officer was only an interdepartmental adjustment and did not amount to legal discharge of the refund obligation. Since the deceased partner's share in the dissolved firm had not been ascertained, no specific amount could be identified as his asset. On that basis, the officer at Bombay was treated as a garnishee at most, making him a proper party but not a necessary party to the refund proceedings. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 24 Sep 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39986