IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE: HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.Nos.14833 & 15147 15148/2018 (T IT) BETWEEN: SHRI M.A.ZAHID S/O LATE M.ABDUL RAHIM, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O ELEGANT DAVIS APARTMENT, FLAT NO.503, 11TH DAVIS ROAD, RICHARDS TOWN, BANGALORE-560084 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI MURTHY DAYANAND NAIK, ADV.] AND: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) TAX RECOVERY OFFICE (CENTRAL) 3RD FLOOR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 RESPONDENT [BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADV. FOR SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A DATED 28.03.2018 FOR A.Y.2007- 2008, NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY WARRANT OF ARREST SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED IN FORM NO.I.T.C.P-25 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, COURT MADE FOLLOWING:- -2- ORDER In these writ petitions, challenge is made to show-cause notices issued by respondent under Rule 73 of Schedule II Procedure for Recovery of Tax in Part V Arrest and Detention of Defaulter under Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to Assessment years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 and defreeze savings bank account of petitioner standing in his name at HDFC Bank Limited, Nandidurga Main Road Branch, Jayamahal Extension, Bangalore. 2. petitioner is assessee under provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act for short) who has been carrying on business in name and style of S.M.S.K. Mineral Trading Company. It is grievance of petitioner that despite relief given to assessee by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench by order dated 22.12.2017 relating to -3- assessment years in question, revenue has issued show-cause notice calling upon petitioner to appear before authority for alleged default committed in making payment of tax. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that in terms of Rule 75 of Schedule II, custody pending hearing can be invoked by Tax Recovery Officer. Hence, in circumstances, interest of petitioner has to be protected. 4. Learned counsel for revenue would submit that petitioner is before this Court only on apprehension of committing him to civil prison. It is trite that unless reply submitted by petitioner dated 31.03.2018 to show-cause notice issued is considered, order of detention is passed in terms of Rule 76 of Schedule II after hearing petitioner, detention of defaulter in civil prison may not arise and further appeal is provided -4- under Rule 86 of Schedule II to challenge order of detention, if any, passed by Tax Recovery Officer under Schedule II. machinery is provided to challenge order of detention, if any, passed by Tax Recovery Officer. Reliance is also placed on order of this Court passed in Crl.P.No.3668/2018, dated 26.06.2018 to contend that anticipatory bail moved by petitioner has been rejected observing that show-cause notice impugned does not give rise to any apprehension of immediate arrest so as to invoke jurisdiction of Sessions Court or High Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 5. I have carefully considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties. Perused records. 6. It is not in dispute that pursuant to show cause notice impugned dated 28.03.2018 relating to assessment years in question, petitioner has -5- submitted detailed reply dated 31.03.2018. In terms of Rule 73 of Schedule II, show-cause notices have been issued calling upon petitioner to appear before Tax Recovery Officer on dates specified in notices. apprehension of petitioner that he may be committed to civil prison on date of appearance can be allayed with, directing Tax Recovery Officer to consider reply submitted by petitioner and to take decision in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner. 7. Hence, petitioner shall appear before respondent on 14.10.2019 without waiting for any further notice and respondent shall consider explanation of petitioner in terms of reply submitted and after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing shall take decision in matter in -6- accordance with law in expedite manner. All rights and contentions of parties are left open. No precipitative action shall be taken till final order shall be passed by respondent in accordance with law. With aforesaid observations and directions, writ petitions stand disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE PMR M.A.Zahid v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD) Tax Recovery Office (Central), Bangalore