IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.16100/2019 (T – IT) BETWEEN:
Mrs. BEENA MURALIDHAR W/O B.MURALIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.763, 14TH CROSS, J.P.NAGAR 1ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560078 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI GAUTHAM NETTAR, ADV.] AND:
1. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NO.537, 5TH FLOOR, C BLOCK, I.T. TOWER, A.C. GAURDS, HYDERABAD-500004.
2. THE MANAGER KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD., J.P. NAGAR BRANCH, SANTOSH TOWERS, 100 Ft. ROAD, J.P. NAGAR 4TH PHASE, BANGALORE-560078 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV. FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED UNREPRESENTED.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.03.2019, BY THE R-1 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 12.03.2019 at Annexure – A to the writ petition.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be the wife of Sri. B. Muralidhar, who was appointed as part time Director of the Company – M/s. A & G Projects & Technologies Ltd., which was formerly known as K & M Projects & Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,. The said Company appears to have been assessed by respondent No.1 – Authority for the assessment year 1999-00 to 2006-07 and was held liable to pay Rs.29,61,27,320/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Crores Sixty One Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Twenty only) to respondent No.1 – Authority.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that she has the Joint Savings Bank Account with her husband in respondent No.2 - Bank and the petitioner is the Primary Account Holder of the said Account. Notice has been issued by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 for marking the said bank account for lien towards the arrears of tax liability of the husband of the petitioner.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no notice was served in terms of Section 226(3)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) on her, a joint account holder.
5. Learned counsel Sri. Goutham Nettar appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds as aforesaid would submit that the mandatory requirement of serving notice on the joint holder of the Joint Account is not complied with in terms of Section 226(3)(iii) of the Act. Hence, the notice impugned at Annexure – A deserves to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue fairly submits that no such notice under Section 226(3)(iii) of the Act has been served on the petitioner - Joint Account Holder of the Savings Bank Account, regarding which notice has been issued to the bankers.
7. In view of the aforesaid, it is discernible that no notice issued under sub-section 3[ii] was forwarded to the petitioner which is sine qua non for the recovery of tax as provided under Section 226 of the Act. The mandatory requirement is not complied with by the revenue, in terms of Section 226(3)(iii) of the Act. Hence, the notice impugned dated 12.03.2019 at Annexure – A deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed.
The writ petition is allowed. Liberty is reserved to respondent No.1 to proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR