Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.1 In pursuance of DRC No.3947, the Recovery Officer began enforcement proceedings under DRC No.3947 in O.A. No.47/2013. However, the 2nd and 3rd respondents filed I.A. No.229/2018 on 12.01.2018 in DRC No.3947 praying to close DRC No.3947 under Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961. The Recovery Officer passed an order dated 05.02.2018 holding that the recovery certificate expired on 31.03.2017 in terms of Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961. The order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Recovery Officer is under challenge in the present writ petition. W.P.(C) No.3943/2023 with W.P.(C) No. 9592/2021

7.1 The petitioners have filed the present OP (DRT) for directions to the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II Ernakulam to drop further proceedings in TDRC No.723/2016 (DRC No.3504) on the ground that the Bank is precluded from proceeding with the matter because of the law of limitation as provided in of Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961.

Borrowers' contentions:

8. The borrowers would submit that the proceedings before the Recovery Officer of the sale of immovable property in terms of the recovery certificate would be incompetent after the limitation OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 2024:KER:95040 prescribed under the provisions of Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act. By virtue of Section 29 of the RDDB Act, certain provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly the provisions of the Second and Third Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961 and the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules 1962 have been incorporated. This is a provision in the RDDB Act by incorporation and the provision so incorporated becomes an integral part of the incorporating Statute.

8.1 The phrase 'as far as possible' in Section 29 of the RDDB Act means that the Income Tax Rules may not apply where it is not at all possible to apply them having regard to the scheme and the context of the legislation. The Rules deal with the process of recovery of the amount due and present no difficulty in enforcing them for recoveries under the RDDB Act where it is applicable and indispensable. The expression 'as far as possible' in Section 29 of the RDDB Act would simply indicate that the provisions of the Income Tax Rules are applicable except such of them which do not have any role to play in the matter of OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 2024:KER:95040 recovery of debts recoverable under the RDDB Act. The expression 'as far as possible' in Section 29 of the RDDB Act does not mean to give discretion to the Recovery Officer to apply the said Rules or not to apply the same in specific fact situations. Rule 68B of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act is applicable in full vigour except in certain circumstances while making recovery under the RDDB Act. There can be no impossibility in complying with the provisions of Rule 68B of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act. Hence, the same would be applicable in cases where recovery of dues is being made under the RDDB Act.

10.2 It is further submitted that Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the recovery proceedings as per the provisions of the RDDB Act. If there is a conflict between the provisions of the Act and the provisions of the Rules, the Act would prevail. Considering the provisions of Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, it is clear that it is in conflict with the scheme of MANU/SC/0432/2000 2019 4 SCC 376 (2013) 9 SCC 460 (2007) 2 SCC 230 OP (DRT) Nos.446/2023, 394/2022, 517/2023, WPC Nos. 3943/2023, 9592/2021, 6793/2018 2024:KER:95040 the RDDB Act, and therefore, the provisions of the RDDB Act would prevail in execution proceedings under the RDDB Act. It is further submitted that Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act would not be applied to the recovery proceedings under the RDDB Act as the operational framework of the Income Tax Act differs fundamentally from that of the RDDB Act. It has been also submitted on behalf of the Bank/Financial Institutions that against the dismissal of the Interlocutory Applications, the borrowers would have the effective alternative remedy under Section 30 of the RDDB Act which provides for appeal against the order of the Recovery Officer and therefore the OP (DRT)/W.P.(C) would not be maintainable.