The transfer of assets made during the pendency of any proceeding under the Income Tax Act, 1961, or after its completion but before the service of notice under Rule 2 of the Second Schedule is void against any claim for tax or other sum payable by the assessee.

( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner, virtually, wanted withdrawal, recalling, cancellation, etc. , of the orders passed by the authority dated February 13, 1996, August 3, 1999, September 7, 1999, and a communication dated November 9, 1999. In addition thereto further other order of refund collected by the appropriate respondents and not to give effect and/or further effect of the orders or communications as aforesaid. In all, the other prayers are incidental to the main relief as prayed for as above.

( 2 ) FIRSTLY, it is to be remembered that the instant application was taken out on April 6, 2000, long after the aforesaid happenings.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, on January 31, 1983, an agreement was entered into between Orient Beverages Ltd. (the lessor) and one Jaymac India (P.) Ltd. , the original defaulter in the proceedings, in terms whereof the lessor let out such company 11th floor of premises No. 50, Chowring-hee Road, Calcutta, covering an area of 5,386 sq. ft. (the said premises) for a period of 34 years up to February 28, 2015, against payment of Rs. 9,49,680 as premium.

( 4 ) THE agreement provided that the lessor shall execute and register the lease deed in favour of the company, as aforesaid. As per the Clause of the agreement, the second party could transfer, sublet or assign its rights in the said premises.

( 5 ) ON November 21, 1983, a notice was issued by the appropriate income-tax authority under Section 143 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1982-83.

( 6 ) ON September 20, 1984, the second party, as aforesaid, entered into an agreement with petitioner No. 1-company, i. e. , Jaymac Lasetron (P.) Ltd. , assigning its interest under the said agreement dated January 31, 1983, and the right to obtain lease deed in the consideration of a sum of Rs. 9,49,680 paid by the petitioner-company to the second party as above. The second party delivered the possession of the said premises to petitioner No. 1-company. Immediately thereafter the petitioner-company licensed out the said premises and the license fee was assessed as its income.

( 7 ) ON March 29, 1990, reassessment proceedings for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 in the case of the second party was completed.

( 8 ) ON April 17, 1990, the lessor executed a formal lease deed (s) in respect of the said premises in favour of the petitioner-company to which the second party was a confirming party.

( 9 ) ON August 25, 1994, the concerned income-tax authority required from the petitioner-company furnishing of the evidence of its ownership of the leasehold interest in the said premises. The petitioner-company duly produced the material documents before the authority.

( 10 ) ON September 30, 1994, the income-tax authority assessed the petitioner-company for the assessment year 1993-94 on the same basis as in the past accepting that it was the owner of the leasehold interest in the said premises.

( 11 ) ON February 13, 1996, the concerned Tax Recovery Officer issued prohibitory orders under Rule 26 (1) (i) of the Second Schedule to the Act on respondents Nos. 5 and 6 prohibiting them from making' payment of the licence fee and service charges to the petitioner-company. The said prohibitory orders were issued in the certificate cases instituted against the defaulter, i. e. , the second party, as aforesaid, for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85.

( 12 ) IN between February and June, 1996, objections were given by the petitioner to the appropriate taxing authorities. Since the Tax Recovery Officer did not withdraw the prohibitory orders, the petitioner-company filed a revision application under Section 264 before the Commissioner of Income-tax on April 30, 1997, but during" the pendency, the Tax Recovery Officer proceeded to realise the licence fees and service charges from respondents Nos. 5 and 6.

( 13 ) ON August 10, 1998, the petitioner-company supplemented the said revisional appl