The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Income Tax Officer has jurisdiction to attach the amount of fixed deposit receipts, even if the amount is payable at a later period, as long as there is a subsisting relationship of debtor and creditor between the bank and the assessee.

V.K. Singhal, J.—The validity of notices issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been assailed in all these petitions and therefore they are disposed of by this common order.

2. The controversy is regarding attachment of fixed deposit receipts which have been attached on account of non-payment of Income Tax dues by the assessees. Garnishee proceedings have accordingly been taken.

3. The only point to be determined is as to whether the petitioner bank is under obligation to make the payment of fixed deposit of the assessees in default before its maturity.

4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner in accordance with the contract entered into, fixed deposit is payable at a later date and therefore it has not become due/The relevant provisions of Section 226(3)(i) and (iv) are as under :

"226. (3)(i) The Assessing Officer or Tax Recovery Officer may, at any time or from time to time, by notice in writing require any person from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee or any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of the assessee, to pay to the Assessing Officer or Tax Recovery Officer either forthwith upon the money becoming due or being held or at or within the time specified in the notice (not being before the money becomes due or is held) so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the amount due by the assessee in respect of arrears or the whole of the money when it is equal to or less than that amount. . . .

(iv) Save as otherwise provided in this sub-section, every person to whom a notice is issued under this sub-section shall be bound to comply with such notice, and, in particular, where any such notice is issued to a post office, banking company or an insurer, it shall not be necessary for any pass book, deposit receipt, policy or any other document to be produced for the purpose of any entry, endorsement or the like being made before payment is made, notwithstanding any rule, practice or requirement to the contrary".

5. Reliance is placed on the decision given in the case of The Hyderabad Co-Operative Commercial Corpn. Ltd. and Others Vs. Syed Mohiuddin Khadir (Dead) by L. Rs. and Others, AIR 1975 SC 2254 as under :

"To be capable of attachment, there must be in existence at the date when the attachment becomes operative something which the law recognises as a debt. So long as there is a debt in existence, it is not necessary that it should be immediately payable. Where any existing debt is payable by future instalments, the garnishee order may be made to become operative as and when each instalment becomes due. The debt must be one which the judgment-debtor could himself enforce for his own benefit. A debt is a sum of money which is now payable or will become payable in the future by reason of a present obligation (see Webb v. Stenton 11 QBD 518)."

6. Reliance is placed on the case reported in Buddha Pictures by Managing Partner, Bhimsingh Vs. Fourth Income Tax Officer and Anr., AIR 1964 Mad 429, where the word "due" was interpreted by the Madras High Court and it was observed that (page 326) :

"In common parlance the word 'due' is associated only with a liability to pay or an obligation to pay. It would be wholly inappropriate to describe an unborn future obligation or liability as something which is due. The relevant provision in the statute with which we are dealing, is intended only to collect the amount due to the Department from persons who are liable to pay to the assessee. The liability to pay may be forthwith as on the date of the receipt of the notice or it may be that such liability would mature after the notice. But, in any event, the essential criterion is that on the date of service of notice, the person should be under an existing obligation to pay amounts to the assessee."

7. Reliance is also placed on the decision given by the Madras High Court in the case of K. M. ADAM Vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, II ADDITIONAL II CIRCLE, MADRAS., (1958) 33 I