The main legal point established in the judgment is that the powers of attorney constituted an equitable assignment, creating an interest in the fund in favor of the Bank, and the Income Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to proceed against those amounts.

K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J.

1. Canara Bank, Ernakulam is the petitioner in this original petition. The Bank has been giving financial accommodation to first respondent from October, 1972 on wards in order to enable them to execute various contract works undertaken by them. First respondent had taken up contract work for F. A. C. T. Engineering and Design Organisation and the Southern Railway. The total amount due to the Bank from the first respondent under various accounts would come to more than Rs. 17 lakhs. On 8-3-1975 first respondent executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the Bank by which the Bank was authorised to receive payment of all amounts due and which may become due from the second respondent under various contract works and to appropriate such amounts in reduction of the advances given by the Bank, The original power of attorney was forwarded to the second respondent and the same was registered in their office. Similarly an irrevocable power of attorney was executed by the first respondent authorising the Bank to receive payment of all amounts which may become due in respect of the contracts entered into between first respondent and Southern Railway. The original power of attorney was forwarded to third respondent and it was since then returned. It is averred in the petition that the powers of attorney constitute an equitable assignment of the amounts due or which may become due to first respondent from respondents 2 and 3 and the Bank was constituted the owners of those amounts. The Bank was therefore entitled to receive payment of all amounts due to first respondent from respondents 2 and 3. The Bank has got a charge and a lien over those amounts.

2. Fourth respondent, the Income Tax Officer, B Ward, Ernakulam Issued orders under S.226(3) of the Income Tax Act calling upon respondents 2 and 3 to deposit the amounts due from them to the first respondent to the credit of the Central Government. These orders were issued on the basis that a sum of Rs. 1,03,148/- was due from first respondent towards arrears of income tax. It is averred that the arrears of tax sought to be recovered is for a period subsequent to the execution of the powers of attorney. The ownership of the amounts having vested in the Bank, the fourth respondent was not entitled to proceed against those amounts. Fourth respondent had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned order.

3. Two applications were filed before 4th respondent requesting the Income Tax Department to revoke the notice Issued by them pointing out the equitable assignment of the amounts In favour of the Bank. Since no orders were passed on those petitions within a reasonable time, the Bank moved this court by 4831/1976. By judgment dt. 13-7-1977 this court directed 4th respondent to dispose of the applications within two months. Thereafter an order was passed on 9-9-1977 rejecting the petition. Aggrieved by that order the Bank again moved this court by O P. 4441/1977 pointing oat that the order was vitiated by errors of law apparent en the face of the record. This court by judgment dated 10-3-1982 directed the Income Tax Officer to decide the question whether petitioner has obtained an indefeasible right to the money by reason of the arrangement entered into between the Back and the first respondent. The matter was again considered by the Income Tax Officer who by order dt. 19-3-1993 rejected the petitions Aggrieved by that order the Bank has filed this original petition seeking a writ of certiorari' or other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the orders of the Income Tax Officer and for an issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 4 and 5, the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ernakulam, to refrain from collecting amounts due from respondent 2 and 3 to first respondent pursuant to the notices Exts. P5 and P6 and also to direst them to pay over to petitioner such sums, as may have been collected by them on the basis of th