KETULBHAI KIRANBHAI PATEL Vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER - 3

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction to quash and set aside the impugned communication / letter dated 18/11/2011 issued by the Income Tax Department Tax Recovery Officer-III, Vadodara, by which with respect to the property in question the original owner Chandravadan Maneklal Shah, Director of M/s. Gayatri Refoils Pvt. Ltd. has been prohibited and restrained from transferring or charging the property in question for the alleged dues of Rs.1,03,32,973/- with interest under section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act.

(2.) Facts leading to the present Special Civil Application in nutshell are as under :-

(3.) Present petition is vehemently opposed by Mr.K.M. Parikh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Income Tax Department. An Affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 -Debt Recovery Tribunal-I. It is vehemently submitted that a huge sum towards income tax is due and payable by Chandravadan Maneklal Shah, Director of M/s. Gayatri Refoils Pvt. Ltd., for which Certificate has been issued by the competent Income Tax Department. It is submitted that for recovery of the income tax dues pursuant to the notice under section 2220(2) of the Income Tax Act property in question of the Director of the assessee -M/s. Gayatri Refoils Pvt. Ltd. is rightly put under attachment. However, he has fairly conceded that looking to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, for dues of the Income Tax Department, Income Tax Department cannot have first charge and/or priority over the secured creditor.