- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46850 WP No. 23732 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 23732 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMAMMA K.H., W/O. DR. H.R. DODDAIAH, AGED 77 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 1072, 11TH MAIN ROAD, WOC ROAD, 2ND STAGE, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 086. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.V. SESHACHALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGHARISH G.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER TRO-2, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095. 2. SMT. GEETHA M. MAHADEVAGOWDA W/O. R. MAHADEVAGOWDA AGED 61 YEARS, R/AT. NO.28/1, 9TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46850 WP No. 23732 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. DIRECTING THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE ATTACHMENT ORDER BY CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION DATED 15.09.2023, 18.12.2023, 26.11.2024, 24 12.2024, 21.01.2025, 18.03.2025 ANNEXURES-C, D, E, F, G AND H RESPECTIVELY AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN TRO VS. GANGADHAR VISHWANATH (1998) 234 ITR 188 (SC) ANNEXURE-K AND THIS COURT IN B.A. BASITH VS. ITO (1981) 128 ITR 434 (KAR) ANNEXURE-J AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs. "a. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to release the attachment order by considering the application dated 15.09.2023, 18.12.2023, 26.11.2024, 24.12.2024, 21.01.2025, 18.03.2025 Annexures-C, D, E, F, G & H respectively and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the judgment of Apex Court in TRO Vs. Gangadhar Vishwanath (1998) 234 ITR 188 (SC) Annexure-K and this Court in B.A. Basith Vs. ITO (1981) 128 ITR 434 (Kar) Annexure-J. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46850 WP No. 23732 of 2025 b. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ declaring that first respondent has no jurisdiction to declare a transfer as void u/s. 281 r/w. Rule 2 of II Schedule of the IT Act as held by the Apex court in TRO Vs. Gangadhar Vishwanath (1998) 234 ITR 188 (SC) Annexure-K and this Court in B.A. Basith Vs. ITO (1981) 128 ITR 434 (Kar) Annexure-J and consequent attachment order is without jurisdiction. c. Issue such other Writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 2. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2 executed a Sale Agreement dated 01.09.2018 in favour of the petitioner, which was subsequently modified with a modified agreement dated 25.11.2022 in relation to immovable property. Meanwhile, respondent No.1 having initiated proceedings for recovery of tax arrears from respondent No.2, the said proceedings lead to an order dated 29.03.2023 passed by respondent No.1 attaching the subject property of respondent No.2. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46850 WP No. 23732 of 2025 It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite repeated representations/requests/applications dated 15.09.2023, 18.12.2023, 26.11.2024, 24.12.2024, 21.01.2025 and 18.03.2025 at Annexures-C, D, E, F, G and H submitted by the petitioner and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of TRO Vs. Gangadhar Vishwanath - (1998) 234 ITR 188 (SC) and this Court in the case of B.A. Basith Vs. ITO - (1981) 128 ITR 434 (Kar) at Annexures - K and J, respondent No.1 has not passed appropriate orders on the said representations/applications and have merely issued a Communication dated 26.03.2025 which is cryptic, laconic, unreasoned and non-speaking, thereby warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would reiterate the various contentions urged in the Statement of Objections and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. The aforesaid facts and circumstances and material on record will indicate that despite repeated representations dated 15.09.2023, 18.12.2023, 26.11.2024, 24.12.2024, 21.01.2025 and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46850 WP No. 23732 of 2025 18.03.2025 at Annexures-C, D, E, F, G and H submitted by the petitioner and the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, respondent No.1 has merely issued a communication dated 26.03.2025 at Annexure-R8, which reads as under: "To, Smt. Lakshmamma KH Wie Dr. H. R. Doddaiah, No 1072, 11th Main Road, WOC Road 2nd Stage,Mahalakshmipuram, Rajajinagar Bengaluru 500 086, Kamataka India Dated: DIN & Letter No 26/03/2025 ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1075055907(1) Sir Madam/ M/s, Subject: Proceedings under Second Schedule of Income-tax Act - Letter Sub: Requests to withdraw the attachment and release of property-reg. Ref: Your letter dated 27.01.2025 & 18.03.2025. ****** With reference to your request letters, you have sought release of the properties with Survey no. 2 having 1 acre, 11 Guntas, Survey No. 3 having 2 acres, 06 Guntas and Survey No. 4/P1 having 1 acre, 27 Guntas situated at Venkatapura, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore. It is also stated vide letter dated 27.01.2025 that Mrs. Geetha Mahadevagowda has sold the agricultural properties to you, vide Registered Sale agreement executed on 01.09.2018. Please note that the title of the Immovable properties may by conveyed only be the registered Sale deed and not by Sale agreement. In this view, the purported Sale - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46850 WP No. 23732 of 2025 agreement dated 01.09.2018 has no relevance. The same is evidenced in the Encumbrance Certificate. BEENA ALEX TRO-2, BANGALORE" 6. Except issuing the aforesaid communication, respondent No.1 has not considered the contentions/submissions of the petitioner nor passed any order pursuant to the same and as such, it would be just and appropriate to set aside the communication dated 26.03.2025 at Annexure-R8 and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration of Annexures - C, D, E, F, G and H, in accordance with law, by issuing certain directions. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The communication dated 26.03.2025 at Annexure-R8 issued by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration of Annexures - C, D, E, F, G and H, in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46850 WP No. 23732 of 2025 accordance with law, bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of TRO Vs. Gangadhar Vishwanath - (1998) 234 ITR 188 (SC) and this Court in the case of B.A. Basith Vs. ITO - (1981) 128 ITR 434 (Kar), as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SJK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9 CT:BHK