JUDGMENT
N.K. Patil, J.
1. The petitioners assailing the correctness of the impugned communication dated January 11, 2008, issued by the respondent, vide annexure A ; the impugned notice dated January 22, 2008, reissued by the respondent under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, vide annexure B ; the impugned communication dated January 22, 2008, reissued by the respondent, vide annexure C and also to quash the proceedings initiated under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in so far as the petitioners are concerned and in the interest of justice, have presented this writ petition.
2. The only grievance of the petitioners as made out by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the instant case is that, the petitioners, have filed an application dated January 3/9, 2008, seeking stay of the impugned demand notice issued in pursuance of the assessment order passed by the assessing authority before the respondent herein. The said application had come up for consideration before the respondent. The respondent instead of considering the request of the petitioners as permissible under the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, has rejected the request of the petitioners and proceeded to issue the impugned communication-cum-orders.
3. Thereafter, the respondent has issued a communication-cum-order dated January 22, 2008, vide annexure B, directly to the Manager, ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Balagangadharanathanagar, Javaranahalli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District, for attachment of a debt under Section 222 of the Income-tax Act, along with necessary challans for depositing the money to the credit of the Central Government. Thereafter, the respondent has issued another communication to the Manager, ING Vysya Bank, vide annexure C on January 22, 2008. The said impugned communications-cum-orders has been issued by the respondent to the petitioners as well as the bank authority, without affording any opportunity to the petitioners and without passing a speaking order, as provided under the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes bearing No. 530, dated March 6, 1989 (see [1989] 176 ITR (St.) 240), and other circulars which are similar in nature. If an opportunity has been afforded to the petitioners, they might have substantiated that they are entitled for interim relief sought against the demand notice. In view of not affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioners and not passing a speaking order, these petitioners felt necessitated to present this writ petition seeking appropriate relief as stated supra.
4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned “standing counsel appearing for the respondent.
After careful perusal of the impugned communications-cum-orders and the impugned directions issued by the respondent to the Manager, ING Vysya Bank, vide annexures A to C, respectively, it is manifest from the contents of the communications and directions issued by the respondent that, the respondent has committed a grave error in rejecting the prayer sought for by the petitioners and in issuing the directions to the Manager, ING Vysya Bank, unilaterally, without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. If the respondent has afforded an opportunity to the petitioners and passed a speaking order as per the circulars issued by the competent authority as referred above, they might have substantiated their case.
5. The respondent being the statutory authority has to pass an order exercising the power as envisaged under the statute and in strict compliance with the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules and after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. Further, it is pertinent to note that, time and again, the apex court and this Court in a catena of judgments has held that quasi-judicial authorities discharging their duties under the statute, has to proceed strictly in compliance with the principles of natural justice and to pass a speaking order. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the impugned communications-cum-order and directions issued by the respondent, as referred to above, cannot be sustained. On this ground alone, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of this case, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part.
6. The impugned communication dated January 11, 2008, issued by the respondent, vide annexure A in favour of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and the directions issued by the respondent to the Manager, ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Balagangadharanathanagar, Javaranahalli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District, dated January 22, 2008, vide annexure C, are hereby set aside.
7. Matter stands remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh, with a direction to take appropriate decision in accordance with law, and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the petitioners herein are directed to appear before the respondent personally or through his counsel along with written statement, if any, on February 21, 2008. The respondent herein is directed to give further date, if necessary and then proceed to pass orders in compliance with the above directions issued by this Court.