P K KUNJAMMA Vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner who is the owner of 42 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 408/ 94 of commannur village attached by the Tax Recovery Officer in realisation of alleged arrears of income tax challenges Exts. P6 and P9. Ext. P6 is a copy of the letter issued by the Village Officer on behalf of the Tax Recovery Officer stating that the attached property shall not be transferred or dealt with otherwise. By Ext. P9 the respondent sent a letter to K.L. Mathew, husband of the petitioner, stating that he is proposing to sell the above attached property in realisation of arrears of income tax due from him for the year 1974-75. It appears, in realisation of the amount due from K.L. Mathew the petitioner's property has been attached. When attachment proceedings were taken in respect of the above property, Ext. P7 petition was filed before the respondent stating that the property attached belongs to her exclusively and that it does not belong to her husband and has no connection whatsoever with his property. By Ext. P8, the petitioner again wrote to the respondent praying to withdraw the attachment at the earliest point of time. No action was taken by the respondent on Exts. P7 and P8. However, the respondent has proceeded with the sale proceedings as observed in Ext. P9. It was under the above background the petitioner came before this court with the present writ petition.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the standing counsel for the Income tax Department.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner is not a 'defaulter' under the provisions of the Income tax Act in so far as the amount claimed by the respondent and hence, attachment effected in this case is totally unwarranted. While projecting his contentions, counsel invited my attention to R.48 of the Rules contained in the II Schedule to the Income tax Act prescribing the procedure for recovery of tax. R.48 reads as follows: