SHAKUNTALA DEVI BHARTIYA Vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT appears that certain income-tax dues were in arrears against a HUF firm, Messrs. Naraindas Gopal Das. On 17th June, 1974, the TRO issued an order to Messrs. Kailash and Company under Rule 26(1)(iii) of the Second Schedule of the I.T. Act prohibiting it from receiving or delivering the balance of the loan account of the petitioner in the firm of Messrs. Kailash and Company. The petitioner filed objections dated 31st July, 1974, and March 25, 1975, objecting to the restraint order. The petitioner's case was that Messrs. Kailash and Company had no relation or interest in the HUF of Narain Das Gopal Das and that the petitioner was not liable to pay the dues recoverable from the HUF.

(2.) WE have perused the counter-affidavit and it is clear that the TRO did not apply his mind, much less dispose of the objections at all. The objection taken in the counter-affidavit that these objections were not headed under the appropriate provision of law does not carry any weight. Whether the petitioner had put the label of the appropriate provision of law at the head of the objection or not will not invalidate the objection, if it falls within the purview of the provision. It was incumbent upon the TRO to proceed to decide the objections before proceeding with the recovery proceedings.