BENI RAM MOOL CHAND Vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have sought issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the notice (annexure 1), order of attachment (annexure 2A) and letters dated February 8, 1990 (annexure 4) and February 14, 1990 (annexure 6), to the writ petition and further for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from initiating and continuing with the recovery proceedings in pursuance of the orders passed under the Indian Income -tax Act, 1922, as well as making the proclamation of sale against the petitioners.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for the respondents at the stage of admission. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid orders and letters on a number of grounds. According to the petitioners, the recovery certificate dated February 8, 1947, having been sent directly by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Kanpur, to the Collector, Fatehgarh, is against the provisions of law and no interest or penalty can be charged and recovered under the Indian Income -tax Act, 1922. The petitioners in respect of this earlier made an application dated January 10, 1979, which is pending. The petitioners earlier filed a writ petition in this court being Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 114 of 1980 (Beni Ram Mool Chand v. TRO : [1990]183ITR652(All) ), which was disposed of finally on October 16, 1989. This court directed the Tax Recovery Officer, Agra, todecide the said application and pass orders thereon within six weeks from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before the said authority. According to the petitioners, the said application has not been disposed of. However, on behalf of the Department, it has been contended that the said application has been disposed of which is mentioned by the Department in the counter -affidavit filed to the earlier writ petition which is annexure 8 to the present writ petition. From the very averment of the petitioners, it is further revealed that the respondents have further issued a letter to the petitioners on February 8, 1990, from which, according to the petitioners, it is apparent that although the Department has accepted some of the various payments made by the petitioners, still they are avoiding to give credit/adjustment on incorrect and frivolous grounds.

(3.) THE main contention on behalf of the petitioners is that, the respondents should be directed to permit the petitioner to examine the record pertaining to the recovery against them in view of the fact that the recovery certificate is an old one initiated in the year 1947.