Smt. Gomati Devi Agarwal and Smt. Meena Kumari and Shri Dharmendra Kumar Agarwal and Shri Rajendra Kumar Agarwal V. Union of India through Commissioner of Income Tax-I and Tax Recovery Officer-3 and The Income Tax Officer, Ward \\u2013 3(2) and The Tax Recovery Officer -2

CW/10050/2007

AI Insights

The case involves the legal heirs of Manak Chand Agarwal, who filed a writ petition against various income tax authorities seeking the release of their property. The property was initially attached due to tax liabilities, but a subsequent certificate was issued indicating no liability for the relevant period. Despite this, the property remained under attachment, prompting the petitioners to seek judicial intervention. The respondents acknowledged the issuance of the no liability certificate and agreed to release the property, subject to any new demands or attachments that might arise for subsequent periods.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 700917 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANUROOP SINGHI; SAURABH JAIN; CHARU PAREEK
• Assessee Lawyers: ANANT KASLIWAL; VAIBHAV KASLIWAL; LOKNATH ACHARYA
• Keywords: No Liability Certificate; Property Attachment; Release of property

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10050 / 2007 Manak Chand Agarwal (deceased-petitioner) through his legal heirs :- 1. Smt. Gomati Devi Agarwal widow of (late) Shri Manak Chand Agarwal, aged 57 years. 2. Smt. Meena Kumari daughter of (late) Shri Manak Chand Agarwal, aged 41 years. 3. Shri Dharmendra Kumar Agarwal son of (late) Shri Manak Chand Agarwal, aged 38 years. 4. Shri Rajendra Kumar Agarwal son of (late) Shri Manak Chand Agarwal, aged 36 years. All residing at Plot No.F-3, Shubham Apartment, D-255, Devi Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. 2. Tax Recovery Officer-3, Room No……., New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. 3. The Income Tax Officer, WARd – 3(2), Room No.227, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. 4. The Tax Recovery Officer -2, Central Revenue Building, Jaipur Road, Ajmer. (2 of 3) [CW-10050/2007] ----Respondents ____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Anant Kasliwal with Mr.Vaibhav Kasliwal Mr.Loknath Acharya For Respondent(s) : Mr.Anuroop Singhi Mr.Saurabh Jain Mr.Charu Pareek _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI Judgment 03/07/2017 This writ petition has been filed to seek release of the property attached by the respondent/s. Learned counsel submits that property of the petitioner/s was attached, however, subsequently, a certificate was issued showing no liability towards the petitioner. As a consequence of it, the property should have been released by the respondent/s but to the utter surprise of the petitioner/s, it is still under attachment. Accordingly, a direction may be given to release the property of the petitioner as no demand against the petitioner remains for the relevant period, for which, attachment of the property was earlier made. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the certificate has been given showing no liability on the petitioner for the relevant period, a direction for release of the property can be given. It should, however, be with the condition that if any other demand was subsequently made or attachment has been effected (3 of 3) [CW-10050/2007] then release would not be effected till meeting out the subsequent demand or attachment. With the aforesaid clarification, the writ petition may be disposed of. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record. This writ petition was filed to seek a direction for release of the property so attached. It was attached at the relevant time, however, subsequently, a certificate showing no liability towards the petitioner was issued. As a consequence of it, the respondents were expected to release the property unless further demand is raised or attachment of the property, as a consequence of it, is made. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to release the property of the petitioner, if the certificate of no liability for the relevant period has been issued. The order of release would, however, remain subject to any other demand or attachment for the subsequent period. It is, however, made clear that if no demand for the subsequent period or attachment order exists, the order of release of the property would be given effect immediately, which should not be later than two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (MN BHANDARI) J. Preeti, PA/100 "