CASE NAME –MUNIR AHMED AND ANR.V/S UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
CASE NUMBER-WP(C)NO. 1054/2025.
DATE-22-03-25
QUORUM-
FACTS OF THE CASE
Within the case of Munir Ahmed and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., the applicants challenged the connection and proposed a deal for their property found at 40A and 40B Circus Road, Kolkata, by the Pay Assess Division for the recovery of the assess levy. The property had a complex possession history, initially obtained by Sk. Barkatulla, who along these lines exchanged parcels to his three spouses through enlisted deeds. One parcel was afterward skilled to his minor stepson. The applicants argued that the connection was illegal, as they had obtained the property honestly and were not at risk for the charge contribution in the address. They recorded a summons appeal looking for the cancellation of the connection and deal orders. In any case, the court famous that an alternative cure was accessible beneath Run the show 11 of the Moment Plan of the Salary Assess Act, permitting complaints some time recently the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Since the applicants had as of now profited from this cure, the court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that things ought not to be unsettled under Article 226 of the Constitution when an elective cure exists
ISSUE
- Whether the connection and proposed deal of the petitioners’ property by the Wage Assess Division was legal.
- Whether the solicitors, as ensuing proprietors of the property, can be held at risk for the assessed contribution of the past proprietor.
- Whether the summons appeal under Article 226 of the Structure was viable when an elective statutory cure was accessible.
- Whether the petitioners’ claim of true-blue proprietorship and need of charge obligation might invalidate the recuperation procedures started by the division.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
- RULE 2 OF THE SECOND SCHEDULE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961
- SECOND SCHEDULE OF THE INCOME TAX,1961
ARGUMNETS
APPELLANT CONTENTION
In Munir Ahmed and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., the appellants contended that the property in address, found at 40A and 40B Circus Road, Kolkata, was lawfully obtained through substantial exchanges and blessings from the first proprietor, Sk. Barkatulla, which they had no association to the assess liabilities of the past proprietor. They argued that the connection and proposed deal of the property by the Salary Charge Division for recuperation of assess contribution were unjustified and illegal, as they were bona fide proprietors with no pending assess commitments. The appellants assist submitted that their rights as legal proprietors were being damaged and looked for help through a summons request beneath Article 226 of the Structure, challenging the activities of the assess specialists.
DEFENDANT CONTENTION
The respondents (Union of India and others) fought that the property was truly connected beneath the arrangements of the Salary Assess Act for the recuperation of extraordinary assess contribution owed by the initial assessee, Sk. Barkatulla. They contended that the exchange of the property to the solicitors showed up to be a implies to sidestep assess recuperation and did not quench the government’s right to implement recuperation against the property. Besides, the respondents kept up that the applicants had as of now profited the cure beneath Run the show 11 of the Moment Plan of the Salary Assess Act by recording protests before the Assess Recuperation Officer, and so, the summons appeal beneath Article 226 was not viable. They emphasized the rule that when an compelling statutory cure exists, protected summons purview ought to not be conjured.
ANALYSIS
In its examination, the Court emphasized the significance of taking after the statutory cure given beneath the Salary Charge Act some time recently conjuring summons locale. It watched that the solicitors had as of now worked out their right to protest beneath Run the show 11 of the Moment Plan, which particularly bargains with debate with respect to connection and claims by third parties. The Court reaffirmed that summons purview beneath Article 226 ought to not be utilized when an satisfactory elective cure exists, especially in charge recuperation things where the law lays down a clear procedural system. Moreover, the Court found no compelling grounds to meddled, as the petitioners’ claim to possession may well be legitimately settled through the assigned assessment recuperation instrument. Subsequently, the appeal was rejected on the grounds of practicality.
JUDEGMENT
Within the case of Munir Ahmed and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., the Court rejected the summons request recorded beneath Article 226 of the Structure, holding that the solicitors had an elective and satisfactory cure beneath Run the show 11 of the Moment Plan of the Salary Charge Act, 1961. The Court famous that since the solicitors had as of now drawn closer the Assess Recuperation Officer by recording complaints to the connection, the matter was being managed with through legitimate lawful channels. It emphasized the settled lawful guideline that summons purview ought to not be conjured when statutory cures are accessible and viable. In like manner, the Court denied to meddled and maintained the legitimacy of the procedures started by the Salary Assess Office.
Conclusion
The case of *Munir Ahmed and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.* underscores the rule that when a statutory cure is accessible and has been profited, protected courts ought to abstain from working out summons purview beneath Article 226. The Court’s choice highlights the significance of taking after procedural components laid out in uncommon statutes just like the Pay Charge Act for settling debate, especially in things including property connection and charge recuperation. The judgment strengthens the require for prosecutors to deplete elective cures some time recently looking for help through summons petitions, in this manner keeping up legal teach and regarding the statutory system.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime Legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY PALAK CHAUHAN
