1987 (10) TMI 18

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....--The petitioner in O . P. No. 2214 of 1985 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The Revenue is the respondent. An order was passed to arrest and detain the appellant in civil prison under Schedule 11, rule 76 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The said order was challenged on the ground that there was no enquiry before passing the said order. Pending the O.P., exhibit P-4 order was passed. The order p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....preciating the materials placed before the Tax Recovery Officer that he came to the conclusion that the appellant should be arrested and detained in civil prison. Later, he was released. These circumstances will amply prove that the Tax Recovery Officer conducted an enquiry as contemplated by Schedule 11, rule 74 of the Income-tax Act before ordering the The contention to the contrary was rightly ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s not satisfied that the defaulter should be arrested and committed to civil prison. Stress was laid before the learned single judge and also before us that the opportunity that was given to the appellant (defaulter) was insufficient and that the enquiry conducted was also perfunctory. We are unable to accept this plea. The fact that the Tax Recovery Officer conducted the enquiry and completed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s not open to any challenge. It was held that the appellant (defaulter) was given sufficient opportunity before the order was passed. Besides, an enquiry was also conducted by the Tax Recovery Officer as contemplated by law. We see no error in the said conclusion. The learned single judge adverted to the finding of the Tax Recovery Officer to the effect that the petitioner had the means to pay ....