9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efly the facts of the case are that an order dated January 24, 1994, was issued by the Tax Recovery Officer purporting to be exercising the power under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against respondent No. 1, the Hansi Mohalla Khatikan Co-operative Labour and Construction Society Ltd., Hansi. This order was followed by another order dated May 23, 1994, issued under section 226(3)(x) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bject-matter of challenge in the civil suit were passed without issuing any notice to the plaintiffs-society (respondent herein), whereas the case of the Income-tax Department is that one Shri Basant Lal Rawal had received the notice-cum-order, dated January 24,1994, for and on behalf of the respondent-society. Prima facie, I am of the view that there is a bar created by section 293 of the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e civil suit, is that it was not served with the notice/order under section 226(3) of the Act, dated January 24, 1994. Naturally, if it is not served, that order will not bind the society. On the other hand, the case of the Department is that the society was served as the notice-cum-order under section 226(3) was received by Mr. Basant Lal Rawal for and on behalf of the society. The case of the so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty itself, the aforesaid orders would naturally stand subject to the society's raising any lawful objection that despite service of the order/notice under section 226(3) on Mr. Rawal for and on behalf of the society, the said notice/orders cannot otherwise stand. Further, I am of the view that if such directions are given, the civil suit itself would stand dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
