ORDER N. Kumar, J.— The petitioner hut preferred this Writ Petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the notice at Annexures-A1 to A5 issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, by the first respondent to the Mandamus of various banks and also a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to return to the petitioner the amount collected illegally from the banker of the petitioner forthwith. 2. The material on record discloses that there exists one Tirupura Bhairavi Math in Northern India which has properties in the State of Karnataka. One Krishnananda Giri Gowswami died the Mahant of this Mutt. The said Kriahnananda Giri Gowswami died on 18.9.1989. The petitioner on has death applied to the Tahasildar of the my sore for issue of a survival certificate. The Tahsildar has issued a certificate dated 23.1.1990 to the effect that the petitioner is the sole surviving family member. The petitioner is filing returns of income for the last several years. In his returns he has showed that he has inherited the property at the mutt and he is filing his returns And paying taxes on the income derived from the properties of the mutt. 3. One Krishnamohananda Giri Goswami claims to be the Mahant of the mutt after the death of Krishnamohananda Giri Gowswami. The dispute between them pending in various Civil Courts. On the income tax tide the dispute reached tint Court and it was held that, even if it is to be held that the properties belong to the mutt, that finding would in no way come in the way of the Civil Courts going into the title of the properly and the petitioner can get his rights adjudicated in a Civil Court. However, when the petitioner called upon the income tax department to inform him the Heftily of the mutt, so that the petitioner who is the successor could pay the amount legally due to the department, the department has not to Jar informed the petitioner about any such liability. However, when the petitioner called upon the income tax department to inform him the Heftily of the mutt, so that the petitioner who is the successor could pay the amount legally due to the department, the department has not to Jar informed the petitioner about any such liability. On the contrary, the department is not recognising the petitioner as a person who has inherited any right either in the properties of the mutt or as a successor of Krishnananda Giri Gowswami hi fact, the income tax department has got the properties of the mutt attached, hi the meanwhile the petitioner has told some of the properties of the mutt through his Power of Attorney one Ramajanam. The said Power of Attorney has kept the consideration of sale in various banks. On coming to know of these sales, realization of the sale consideration and the amount tang kept in the banks, till income tax department has issued the Impugned notices under Section 226(d) of the Act, calling upon the Managers of the respective banka to pay to the department the amount which is standing in the account of Ramajenam, the the power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner, towards the account of dues of Tirupura Bhairavi Mutt of Northern India. In fact, a sum of Rs. 18,57,999/- has been realized by the department in pursuance of such notices issued. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The income tax department has filed a detailed reply. The sum and substance of their defence is, though the petitioner is not due in any monies to the assessee, i.e., the mutt, as the petitioner has wrongfully sold the properties belonging to the mutt, in spits of an order of attachment and the said amount is kept in bank deposits in the name of his Power of Attorney Holder, the department has right to recover the said amount. Therefore, they have issued these notices under Section 226(3) addressed to the Managers of various banks to remit the said amount to them. Therefore, they have issued these notices under Section 226(3) addressed to the Managers of various banks to remit the said amount to them. It is that on record that several suits in respect of the mutt t property are pending before the CM Courts between the petitioner and the other claimant Krishnamohananda Giri Goswami m fact the income tax department itself hot filed several suits for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by the petitioner through his Power of Attorney Holder in favour of various purchaser in respect of several properties of the mutt which is also pending adjudication and therefore, they contend that the Writ Petition filed challenging their action is not maintainable. 5. Sri Shankar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, assailing the impugned actions of the respondents contend firstly that, far application of Section 226 of the Act the petitioner should he due in any money to the assessee and in default of such payment, his money could be attached at the hands of his garnishee. Secondly he contends that, even if the petitioner does not pay money in spite of the demand by the department towards monies due to the as leasee, then the petitioner would be personally liable to pay amount if at all the said money has to be recovered it should be under Sections 222 to 225. The provision of Section 226(3) cannot be invoked against the garnishee of the petitioner. Therefore he submits that, seen from any angle the impugned action of the respondents is cum without jurisdiction and requires to be quashed. 6. Per contra, the learned Counsel far the respondent contended that, the amount now attached in pursuance of the impugned notice is in the account of macadam and not the petitioners and therefore, the petitioner cannot maintain this Writ Petition. Secondly, ha contends that the petitioner has sold the properties bringing to the mutt in spite of an order of attachment The tale consideration realised out of touch ale is now in the bank account of his Power of Attorney Ramajanam. property of the mutt. There for they are justified in getting the amount attached. 7. Prom the aforesaid material it ii clear that the facts are not in dispute. Tirupura Bhairvi Mutt of Northern India has been assessed to income tax and the mutt is a defaulter in payment of income tax to that department. property of the mutt. There for they are justified in getting the amount attached. 7. Prom the aforesaid material it ii clear that the facts are not in dispute. Tirupura Bhairvi Mutt of Northern India has been assessed to income tax and the mutt is a defaulter in payment of income tax to that department. It is for recovery of the said defaulted amount the department has issued the impugned notice. After issuing impugned notices, 8ri Ramajanam the Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner, filed an affidavit before the department swearing to the met that the petitioner had no transaction whatsoever with an entity called Tirupura Bhairavi Math of Northern India at any time. No money is or was due to the said Tirupura Bhairavi Math of Northern India at any time tux he holds any money for and on account of ton said Mutt. In reply to the and affidavit too department addressed a letter dated 23.3.2006 as par per Annexure-J2 stating that at no point of time the department has claimed that that the petitioner is illegally siphoning out the monies belonging to the Mutt by indiscriminately selling the proportion belonging to the Mutt which are under attachment by the income tax department. It is in that content they have issued the impugned notices under Section 226(3) of the Act. 8. It is in this background we have to see whether Section 226 which deals with other modes of recovery. Is attracted to the facts of this case. The relevant provisions are 226(3), (i) and (x). 226. Other modes of recovery. 1. ... 2. ... (3) (1) The Assessing Officer or Tax Recovery Officer may, at any time of from time to time. By notice in writing require any person from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee or any person who holds or may subsequently hold many for or on account of the assessee to pay to the Assessing Officer or Tax Recovery Officer either forthwith upon the money becoming due or being held or at or within the time specified in the notice (not being before the money becomes due or is held) so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the amount due by the assessee in respect of arrears or the whole of the money when it is (sic) to or less than that amount. xxx xxx xxx Where a person to whom a notice under this sub-section is sent object to it by a statement on death that the sum demanded or any part there of is not due to the assessee or that he does not hold any money for or on account of the assessee, then noting confined in this sub-section shall he deemed to require such person to pay any such sum or part thereof, as the case may be, that if it is discovered that such statement was false in any material particular, such person shall be personally liable to the Assessing Officer, off Tax Recovery Officer to the Officer or Tax Recovery Officer may, at any time or from Ham to Urn, by notice in writing require any person shall wham money is due or may become due to the assessee or any person who holds or may subsequently pay to the extent of the assessor’s liability for any sum due under this Act, whichever is less. xxx xxx xxx (vi) If the person to whom a notice under this sub-section is sent fats to make payment in pursuance the Officer or Tax Recovery Officer, he shall be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of the amount specified in the notice and further proceedings may be taken against him for the realisation of the amount as if it were an arrear of tax due form him, in the manner provided in Sections 222 to 225 and the notice shall have the same effect as an attachment of a debt by the Tax Recovery Officer in executes of his powers under Section 222. 9. Interpreting these previsions Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Smt. Tejal R Amin 9 (sic) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Itr Vel 208 Page 103 has held as under: One additional mode under Sub-section (3) of recovering tax from the debtor of the assessee is prescribed & provides a procedure (which is similar to a garnish order which could be passed by a Civil Procedure Code) of giving a notice and hearing of objections, if any, that may be filed by a third party from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee. In response to the said notice, if the objection is raised to the effect that the sum demanded or any part thereof is not due to the assessee or that he does not hold any money for or an account of the assessee, then Clause (vi) of Sub-section (3) of Section 226 provides that the sub-section which requires the gamishee to pay the amount shall not be applicable If no objection is rated under Clause (ix) the person discharging any (sic) to the assessee after (sic) of a notice under this sub-section, shall he personally liable to the Assessing Officer or the Tax Recovery Officer to the extent of his own liability to the assessee Clause (x) which is relevant for our consideration provides that if the person to whom a notice under this sub-section is sent falls to make payment in pursuance thereof to the income Tax Officer, he shall be "deemed to be an assessee in (sic) in respect of the amount specified in the nation. It further provides that the proceedings against him may be taken for realization of the amount as if it were an arrear of tax due from him in the manner provided in Sections 222 to 225. This clause therefore specifically provides that, if the person to whom a notice under Sub-section (3) is sent false to make payment, he shall be demand to be an assessee in default I respect of the amount specified in the notice. That amount specified in the notice is further deemed to be as if it were an arrear of tax due from him and the said amount could be recovered in the manner provided in Sections 222 to 225. Hence, under this clause, the amount from a third party, who is liable to pay to the assessee and to whom the notice under Sub-section 222 to 225. Hence, under this clause, the amount from a third party, who is liable to pay to the assessee and to whom the notice under Sub-section (3) is given can be recovered from him by following the procedure under Sections 222 to 225 as if he is an assessee in default to the extent of the amount specified in the notice. Hence, under this clause, the amount from a third party, who is liable to pay to the assessee and to whom the notice under Sub-section (3) is given can be recovered from him by following the procedure under Sections 222 to 225 as if he is an assessee in default to the extent of the amount specified in the notice. Further, reading clause pc of Sub-section (3) of Section 226, It is apparent that the Legislature has not sounded that from the debtor of the assessee who is deemed to be an assesses in default as provided in Clauses (x), the arrears of tax can be recovered as provided under Sub-section(2) of Section 226. On the contrary, there is specific provision that it is to be recovered as provided in Sections 222 to 225. armors of tax can be recovered as provided under Sub-section (2) of motion 226. On the contrary, there is specific provision that a is to be recovered as provided in Sections 222 to 225. If we accept the contention raised by learned Counsel, Mr. Thakore, for the Revenue, that once the debtor of the assessee is deemed to be an assessee in default, then the relevant part of the sentence "In the manner as provided in Sections 222 to 225" in Clause (x) of Sub-section (3) would be (sic) The Legislature would have stopped only by providing that –in such cases – further proceedings that –in such cases – further proceedings may be taken against him for the realization of the amount as if it were an arrear of tax due from him – and the second part "In the manner provided in Section 222 to 225" was not necessary. 10. Following the said judgment a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Shaw Wallace and Co. Limited and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. It Vol. 267 page 249 has held as under: Whether Section 226(6) applies to a debtor of garnishee: So far as the question as to whether the provisions of Section 226(3) could be applied against the debtor of a gamisher or in other words upon a gamishee of a gamishee, is consumed the learned (sic) of a gamishee, is consumed, the learned single judge had decided that it does not. This part of the decision has not been assailed in the appeal by the appellant SWCL. This part of the decision has not been assailed in the appeal by the appellant SWCL. Nether has any cross-objection been filed by the Department as sating this finding. Therefore this funding is not more open to be agitated in this appeal admittedly, Clause (x) of Section 226(3) contemplates recovery of the tax in the modes provided under Section 226. This is indicate of the insertion of the Legistation. As rightly contender by Mr. Sarkar reling upon onkar Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Onkar S. Kanwar and Others, AIR 2002 SC 3563 , this statute has to be interpreted in favour of the assesee in case of any ambiguity where tow vies are possible, as is apparent in the present case, as such we are not supposed to hold otherwise. The learned single judge appears to have held that law correctly. That apart, in Tejal R. Amin Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (1994) 208 ITR 103 Guj. It was held that Section 226(3) does not apply to a actor of garnishes and that in default of the garnishee the amounts specified in the notice can be recovered as if a tax due from him deeming the gamishee an assessee in default in the manner provided under Sections 222 to 225 on the reasoning that if the Legislature had intended that Section 226 would also be applicable, in that event, it would have stopped before the share "in the manner provided under Sections 222 to 225". We do not find any reason to differ from the views taken by the Gujarat High Court. We may buttress the said view with the reason following. Since Clause (x) prescribes a particular mode of recovery through the procedure prescribed under Section 222 to 225 in case of default by a garnishee the recovery is to be trade in accordance with those provisions and not otherwise, as was held in followed in A. Robert Vs. The United Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 2977 . When Clause (x) does not include Section 226, it is to be presumed that the Legislature had deliberately and (sic) omitted and had intended to exclude the application of Section 226 in a case contemplated under Clause (x) of Section 226(3). Therefore, we are of the view that the learned single Judge has correctly decided the question. 11. When Clause (x) does not include Section 226, it is to be presumed that the Legislature had deliberately and (sic) omitted and had intended to exclude the application of Section 226 in a case contemplated under Clause (x) of Section 226(3). Therefore, we are of the view that the learned single Judge has correctly decided the question. 11. A learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Vysya Bank Limited v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. ITR Vol. 241 page 178 has held as under: Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Contemplates that the Income Tax Officer may require any person at any time of from time to time (1) from whom money is due; (2) or any become due to the assessee; (3) any person who holds money for an assessee; (4) or may subsequently hold money on account of an assessee, to pay to the Assessing Officer or Tax Recovery Officer (sic) forthwith or upon the money become due or being held or at or within the time specified in the notice not being before the money becomes due or is held. There should be an obligation on the person on whom notice is served to pay money to the (sic) i.e., the subsisting relationship of a debtor and (sic) is a sine qua non for the exercise of the power under the section. In the case of a fixed deposit in a bank the banker becomes a debtor of the assessee in default the moment the fixed deposit receipt is made on the due dates. But on forgetting interest or paying lesser rate of interest the bakers generate permit customers to withdraw the amount of the fixed deposits before the maturity date. The fixed deposit receipt is not a negotiable instrument, but could be assigned with the concurrence of the bank in favour of other persons. According to the instructions which are issued by the Reserve Bank from time to time if a depositor wants to en cash the fixed deposit wants to en-cash the fixed deposit receipt before its (sic) the bank is bound to refund the amount with lesser interest as is permissible looking to the time involved. The Department steps into the shoes of the assessee and can claim payment even before its maturity. The Department steps into the shoes of the assessee and can claim payment even before its maturity. Attachment of the amount in the fixed deposit could be made by the income tax authorities could be made by the income tax authorities under the proviso to Section 226(3). 12. Therefore, Section 226 of the Act provides far other motto of recovery of tax. One such mode contemplated under the said provision is to recover money from my person from whom money it due or may become due to the assesses or any person who holds or may subsequently hold money far or on account of the assesse The procedure prescribed is the! a notice in writing specifying the money as is sufficient to pay the amount due by the assessee in respect of arrears or the whole of the money when it is equal to or less than the amount, is to be issued to such person requiring him to pay the Assessing Officer or Tax Recovery Officer, either forthwith upon the many beckoning due or being held or at or within the time specified in the notice. 13. On such notice being served, such parson has a right to object to the payment of the amount mentioned in the notice on two grounds. Firstly an the ground that the sum demanded or any part thereof is not due by him to the assessee. Secondly, on the ground that he does not hold any money far ox on account of the assessee. This objection should be by way of statement on oath. 14. However, if such person does not object a aforesaid and fails to make payment in pursuance thereof; he shall be deemed to be an "WMIW in default" in respect of the amount specified in the notice. The Amount so specified may be recovered from ouch person no if it were ma arrears of tax duo from him, in the manner provided in Section 222 to 225, and the notice shall have the same effect as an attachment of M debt by the Tax Recovery Officer, in excise of hit powers under Section 222. The Amount so specified may be recovered from ouch person no if it were ma arrears of tax duo from him, in the manner provided in Section 222 to 225, and the notice shall have the same effect as an attachment of M debt by the Tax Recovery Officer, in excise of hit powers under Section 222. In case ho objects to the payment on the aforesaid grounds end liter it it discovered that such statement wet false in any material particulars, ouch person shall be personally liable to the extent of his own liability to the assessee on the date of notice OK to the extent of the assessee liability for any sum due under the Act, which ever is less. 15. Therefore, this provision is intended to recover money due from en assesses in the hands of a garnishee of the assessees For the application of the aforesaid provision the condition precedent is, the person who is demanded to make payment should be due in any money to the assessee. It is only to such person the assessing officer or the Tex Recovery Officer may issue a notice demanding Urn to main payment of the monies which are due by him to the assessee which is sufficient to pay the money due to the assessee in respect of arrears or the whole of the money when it is equal or less that amount. If the garnishee of the money when it is equal or less then that amount due under the provision, he shall be deemed to be an "assesses ub default" the procedure prescribed under Section 226(3) is not attracted. The money due to an "assesses in default" or a person personally liable under Sub-clause (vi) of Section 226(3) cannot be recovered in the mode prescribed under Section 226(3). For monies due from the "assesses in default" the procedure prescribed for monies due form the "assesses in default" the procedure prescribed for recovery of the same in as provided under Section 222 to 225 of the Act. From the person who makes a false statement. The amount due shall be recovered as if it is his own liability. 16. Now the assesses, who is duo in money to the department is the Mutt. From the person who makes a false statement. The amount due shall be recovered as if it is his own liability. 16. Now the assesses, who is duo in money to the department is the Mutt. The petitioner is willing to pay the amounts due to Department by the Mutt, provided he is recognised by the Department as the successor of Krishnananda Giri Gowswami or Mahant of the Mutt. But the Department is not willing to recognize him as the person who has inherited any right in the properties of the Mutt or as a successor to the Mahant, of the Mutt. From the reply to the impugned notice Mid the rejoinder sent by the department it is clear that the petitioner owes no money to the Mutt, i.e. the assessee. On the contrary, they have categorically stated that at no point of time, the department has claimed that the petitioner is duo in monies to too Mutt. Ho it neither an MMIIW nor garnishee. Therefore, the department cannot call upon the petitioner to pay any money to than at all. Therefore, Section 336(3)(i) it not attracted. 17. From the defence of the department it is clear that they have issued the impugned notice to the gumshoe of the petitioner who is holding the money which, belongs to the petitioner. Even if the petitioner were to commit default in payment of the money, though money could ha recovered from the petitioner, the procedure prescribed for such recovery is as contained in Section 222 to 225. Section 226 cannot he invoked to recover the money from the petitioner. When that being the case, the impugned notice issued to the various banks where the petitioner money is kept, us outside the purview of Section 226(3) of the Act and the said notifies issued, attachment enacted is wholly without jurisdiction. 18. Similarly, if the petitioner has wrongly sold the property belonging to the mutt, the income tax department would not get any right to proceed against the petitioner merely because they have attached the properties. In the entire scheme of the Income Tax Act, there is no provision which vests the power in the department to proceed against a person who wrongfully sells the property of the assessee and recover the monies from him. In the entire scheme of the Income Tax Act, there is no provision which vests the power in the department to proceed against a person who wrongfully sells the property of the assessee and recover the monies from him. Therefore, seen from any angle, the notices issued under Section 226(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction and requires to be quashed. If any money ii already received by the department from the banks in pursuance of the said notice, they are bound to refund the money to the persons from whom they have received it, i.e., the banker who have made payment to the department, as the collection of the said money has no legal basis and is without authority of law. 19. The money which is in the Bank and attached, belong to the petitioner. The money does not belong to Ha power of attorney holder. This attachment affect the interest of the petitioner and not his cower of attorney holder. Therefore. the petitioner is the aggrieved person whose rights are affected by the action of the respondent. If the power of attorney holder of the petitioner has a right to challenge the said action of the respondent, it would not be in his personal capacity, but it would be on behalf of the petitioner, his principal. What an agent could do the principal can always do. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable and there is no substance in the contention of the respondents in this regard. 20. In that view of the matter, I pass the following order: a) Writ Petition is allowed. b) The impugned notices are hereby quashed. c) The department is directed to refused a sum of Rs. 18, 57, 999/- to the banks which paid the said amount with interest at 9%