SUBASHREE Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings pursuant to the communication in No. MSPR: IT Attachment 2003 GVR dated February 18, 2003, of the first respondent and to quash the same.

(2.) The petitioner is the wife of Thiru V. Baskaran. The first respondent/bank by its communication dated February 18, 2003, has informed the petitioner that her fixed deposit for Rs. 10 lakhs lying with the bank was attached by the Income-tax Officer, Central CIR II(4), Chennai, in the year 1997 as per Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in lieu of arrears of income-tax of her husband Baskaran and that the income-tax authorities have requested the first respondent/bank to remit the maturity proceeds of the fixed deposit to them and therefore a request has been made to the petitioner by the bank to get the attachment order withdrawn on or before February 22, 2003, failing which they may have to remit the amount to the concerned authorities. This communication of the first respondent bank has driven the petitioner to approach this Court by means of filing of the present writ petition.

(3.) It transpires from the contents of the affidavit filed by the petitioner to the effect that the fixed deposit amount of Rs. 10 lakhs is under the attachment of the second respondent/Income-tax Department and that if the amount is remitted to the second respondent/Income-tax Department, then she will be put to hardship and prejudice and also that her husband has filed a writ petition in W. P. No. 10686 of 2001 and also that her husband approached the authorities in this regard and it is evident from the typed set of papers that the petitioner has addressed a letter dated February 21, 2003, to the second respondent-bank, inter alia, stating that her husband may have arrears of income-tax and that it does not mean that she should settle his dues with the Department and there is no law in India making the wife responsible for paying any arrears of tax of the husband and therefore, the second respondent-bank is not authorised to pay the money to the Department and therefore, as demanded the first respondent/bank is to keep the deposit intact with it and that she is contemplating moving the appropriate authorities including the High Court in the matter in issue, etc.