ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER-I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The ICICI Bank has come up with the above writ petition challenging an order of attachment dated 14-03-2018 issued by the Tax Recovery Officer-I of the Income Tax Department under Rule 48 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961.

(2.) We have heard Mr. G. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Raji Reddy, learned senior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department, Mr. C.P. Ramaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana) for the 2nd respondent.

(3.) The main ground on which the ICICI Bank has come up with the above writ petition is that a company by name M/s. Sojiram Ispat Private Limited availed financial assistance from the petitioner-bank, way back in June, 2011 and that the 3rd respondent herein guaranteed the repayment of the loan and also mortgaged the immovable properties bearing Plot Nos.B-52 and B-53 situated at Assisted Private Industrial Estate, Balanagar, Hyderabad. After the borrower company failed to repay the outstanding amounts and their account became a Non Performing Asset, the petitioner bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act, 2002) and sold the property and also got the Sale Certificate issued. But, when an attempt was made to have the sale certificate registered, the Sub-Registrar refused on the ground that there was an order of attachment issued by the Tax Recovery Officer of the Income Tax Department. Therefore, challenging the order of attachment, the Bank has come up with the above writ petition.