Law:

Section:

JUDGMENT Akil Kureshi, J. - Petitioner has challenged action of the respondent in attaching and recovering an amount of Rs. 9,05,000/= from the Public Provident Fund account ["PPF account" for short] of the petitioner. Brief facts are as under :- 2. The petitioner is assessed as an individual by the Income-tax Department. On 5th August 1992, the petitioner had opened a PPF account with State Bank of India, Salabatpura Branch, Surat under the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968 ["the Scheme" for short]. From time to time, the petitioner went on depositing various amounts in the said account. As on 29th October 2004, there was a sum of Rs. 9,06,466.01p. accumulated in the PPF account of the petitioner. 3. The respondent-Tax Recovery Officer, Surat issued a notice dated 25th February 2005 under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act" for short) to the Branch Manager of Salabatpur Branch of the State Bank of India stating that a sum of Rs. 25,16,790/= is due from the petitioner to the Income-tax Department. His PPF account is therefore attached under section 226 (3) of the Act and the amount lying in the said account may be remitted to the Tax Recovery Officer. 4. On 17th March 2005, the Branch Manager, State Bank of India wrote to the petitioner informing him that he had received the order from the Tax Recovery Officer under which a lien had been created on his PPF account and therefore, no withdrawal or loans would be permitted against the balance in the said account. 5. The case of the petitioner is that the order of assessment giving rise to the income-tax dues of the petitioner was under challenge before the Appellate Commissioner. Pending such appeal, the petitioner had deposited substantial amount of taxes and that therefore, the rest of the demand would be stayed. According to the petitioner, his outstanding dues even pending appeal were only Rs. 5,06,142/=. Despite this, the respondent recovered a sum of Rs. 9,05,000/= unilaterally from the PPF account of the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the said action of the respondent. 6. Counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on Section 9 of the Public Provident Fund Act,…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492