PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the time of motion hearing, counsel for the petitioner had contended that notice under Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, had only been issued but was never served on the defaulter. Shri R. P. Sawhney, senior standing counsel for the Department, from the record had shown that notice under Rule 2 had not only been issued but had actually been served on the defaulter. In view of this, under Rule 16, a defaulter or his representative-in-interest was not competent to mortgage or create any charge or deal with any property belonging to him except with the permission of the Tax Recovery Officer. Rule 16 also provides that the civil court shall not issue any process against such property in execution of a decree for the payment of money. Accordingly, I find that no case is made out for interference in this civil revision and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.