TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt-Bank. 2. The Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The petitioner was holding a Public Provident Fund (PPF) Account No.469 under the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968 with the respondent-Bank in the name of Rajnikant Punjalal Shah Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The petitioner was investing HUF's money in the said account. The petitioner is a partner of Gujarat Steel & Pipes- Partnership Firm and the said firm was also holding a Cash Credit Account No.29760500000019 with the respondent-Bank. It is the case of the petitioner that both the accounts do not have any interconnection as the PPF Account is opened with the Central Government through the respondent, while Cash Credit Account is maintained and held with the respondent. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tached and Clause (ka) to the proviso of Section 60 of the CPC states that "all deposits and other sums in or derived from any fund to which the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 (23 of 1968), for the time being applies, in so far as they are declared by the said Act as not to be liable to attachment." 3.3 He has further placed reliance on the judgement of Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Dineshchandra Bhailalbhai Gandhi Vs. Tax Recovery Officer, 2014 S.C.C. OnLine Gujarat 15889. The Division Bench of this Court in the said judgement has held thus: "7. The Scheme is framed under the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968. The statement of objects and reasons for enactment of the Act state inter alia that the object of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the PPF Act, 1968 it can be seen that the same is a benevolent statute and envisages creation of an institution of the Provident Fund for the general public, for the purpose of a medium for long term savings for individuals. The Act envisages framing up of a Public Provident Fund Scheme and creation of a fund in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Scheme. The Act contains provisions for the subscription to the fund and interest to be paid on the subscriptions. It also controls the withdrawals and granting of loan against the amount standing to the credit of a subscriber in the Fund. Section 9 of the PPF Act, therefore, has to be seen in the background of such benevolent provisions. The provision of the PPF Act, 1968 seen ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Government or Railway Provident Fund shall not in any way be capable of being assigned or charged and shall not be liable to attachment under any decree or order of any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the subscriber or depositor, and neither the Official Assignee nor any receiver appointed under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, shall be entitled to, or have any claim on, any such compulsory deposit." 11. The decision in case of Union of India v. Radha Kissen Agarwalla & Anr. [Supra] was reiterated in case of Union of India v. Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance & Ors., reported in AIR 1976 SC 1163. Here also, the Court was considering Section 3 of the PPF Act, 1925. Referring to clause (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all not be liable to attachment or sale. Clause (ka) thereof reads as under :- "(ka) all deposits and other sums in or derived from any fund to which the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 (23 of 1968), for the time being applies, in so far as they are declared by the said Act as not to be liable to attachment." 15. To our mind, three provisions noted above, namely, Section 9 of the PPF Act, 1968 Rule 10 of Schedule-II to the Income-tax Act, 1961 and clause (ka) to the proviso to Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure complete a full circuit, making any amount lying in the public provident fund of a subscriber immune from attachment and sale for recovery of the income tax dues. We may recall that Rule 10 of Schedule-II ....