SUNIL KUMAR SINGH DEO Vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . With consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard on merits. In this application under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the TRO, under rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income -tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), directing sale of the property under attachment.

(2.) PROCEEDINGS initiated under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act for recovery of tax for the years 1951 -52 to 1958 -59 proved abortive, on the holding of the revisional authority that the provisions contained in the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act were not attracted the provision being those contained in the Act. Proceedings were there after initiated under the Second Schedule for recovery of the tax in question. Various objections raised by the petitioner to the maintain ability of the proceedings and on merits were negatived. Hence, this writ application.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revenue has endeavoured to justify the action by referring to various provisions contained in the Act and the Second Schedule thereto.