Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V.K. KHANNA, OM PRAKASH, JJ.
Kuldeep Singh - Appellant
Versus
Tax Recovery Officer – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition Nil of 1988
Decided on : Apr 25, 1988
Income-tax-dues - Arrest for Realization - Stay of Execution of Tax Recovery - Writ Petition
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the respondent's action of arresting the petitioner for realization of alleged income-tax-dues. The petitioner had filed an appeal under Rule 86 of the Rules, which had not been disposed of at the time of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was already pursuing a remedy by filing an appeal before the Tax Recovery Commissioner and was entitled to move an application under Rule 86(3) of the Rules. The court held that if the appellate authority stayed the execution of tax recovery, the petitioner would be entitled to be released subject to the final decision in the appeal. The court directed the Tax Recovery Commissioner to decide on the application within a week and to ensure that the appeal was finally disposed of within four weeks from the date of filing the certified copy of the court's order.
Issues: Arrest for realization of income-tax-dues, pending appeal under Rule 86, stay of execution of tax recovery
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's pursuit of remedy through appeal and application under Rule 86(3) entitled them to stay the execution of tax recovery, leading to release subject to the final decision in the appeal. The court directed the Tax Recovery Commissioner to expedite the appeal process.
Final Decision: The writ petition was finally disposed of, with the court providing directions for the stay of execution of tax recovery and expeditious disposal of the appeal.
1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the action of the respondent in arresting the petitioner for realisation of the alleged income-tax-dues.
2. On March 22, 1988, after hearing the parties under Rule 76 of the rules framed under the Income-tax Act, the Tax Recovery Officer, Income-tax Department, Gorakhpur, took a decision that the petitioner was intentionally avoiding the payment of income-tax dues and was thus liable to be sent to civil imprisonment.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 86 of the Rules. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid appeal has not been disposed of uptil now.
3. At the admission stage, we have heard Sri R. K. Agarwal, learned standing counsel, appearing for the Department, and the present writ petition is being disposed of finally in accordance with the rules of the court.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is already pursuing his remedy when he has already filed an appeal before the Tax Recovery Commissioner. The petitioner is also entitled to move an application under Rule 86(3) of the Rules. In such a case, if an application is moved and the appellate authority comes to the conclusion that the execution of the tax recovery should be stayed, the consequences of such stay order will be that the petitioner will be entitled to be released forthwith subject to the final decision which is taken in the appeal. If such an application is moved, the same shall be decided by the Tax Recovery Commissioner within a week from the presentation of the application. The Tax Recovery Commissioner will also see to it that the appeal is finally disposed of in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the certified copy of our order.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
5. A copy of this order shall be given to learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges today.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
