S V MUZUMDAR Vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application the petitioner has sought information about the status of demand of the IT Department against respondent No. 2. Mr. Jolly, counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 3, has stated at the Bar, on instructions from Mr. Sukhdev Singh, TRO, Patiala, who is present in Court, that presently the demand against respondent No. 2 is Rs. 8,27,899. Mr. Jolly further submits that fresh proclamation proposed to be issued will incorporate the revised demand. In view of this statement made by Mr. Jolly this application stands disposed of. C.W.P. No. 954 of 1990 :

(2.) THE petitions has sought quashing of the attachment dt. 18th Feb., 1988, and the proclamation of sale dt. 26th Feb., 1990, with respect to property No. B -3, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, allegedly belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have purchased this property from respondent No.2 after paying full consideration for the same. Learned counsel for the IT Department, however, submits that the petitioner purchased the property after the property had already been attached by the IT Department. So far as the question of grievance of the petitioner against the proclamation of sale by the IT Department is concerned learned counsel for the Department pointed out that the petitioner has a right of appeal against such an order under r. 86 of Sch. II to the IT Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may not have any right of appeal under the said rule because the petitioner was not a party to the assessment proceedings. On this aspect learned counsel for the Department concedes that the petitioner will also have a right of appeal under r. 86 as he is an aggrieved person. In view of this, the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal against the impugned proclamation. The writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable. The same is dismissed. Interim orders passed in the petition are hereby vacated. No costs.