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.]
 -2-

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:-

ORDER

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-

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

 -4-

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.
 -5-

The writ petition is allowed. Liberty is reserved to

respondent No.1 to proceed in accordance with law.

Sd/-
JUDGE

PMR