Mere forwarding of a copy of notice, after effecting recovery, will not in any way serve object underlying legislative intent in introducing sub-section (ii) of section 226(3)
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Andoorkonam Services Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Thiruvananthapuram
WA NO. 2488 OF 2019
JANUARY 20, 2020
Section 226 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Collection and recovery of tax – Other modes of recovery (Garnishee order) – Whether mere forwarding of a copy of notice, after effecting recovery, will not in any way serve object underlying legislative intent in introducing clause (ii) of section 226(3) – Held, yes – Notice of attachment and recovery for realization of amounts due from petitioner, a co-operative bank, was issued to respondent bank as garnishee – Petitioner-bank sought direction for refund of amount paid by respondent to Department contending that assessment made with respect to amount sought to be recovered was under challenge in an appeal and that ‘garnishee proceeding’ was initiated and amount was recovered without issuing any notice to petitioners, as required under section 226(3) – Single Judge, without adverting to claim for refund, had disposed of writ petition by directing Tribunal to pass order, within three months – It was found that attachment and recovery was effected at a great haste, without taking into consideration relevant parameters and further, issue pertaining to liability of petitioner for payment of income-tax remained now settled – Whether, thus, recovery from garnishee bank had been done in a manner depriving interest of and without following guidelines which ought to have been followed in matter of garnishee attachment and recovery, since amount had already been collected against existing demand, ITO should make refund of amount to petitioner in case it would furnish bank guarantee – Held, yes