JUDGMENT By Court Heard learned counsel for the parties. According to the petitioner, search and seizure operation was conducted in the premises of the writ petitioner, at its office of the General Manager (Sales), Central Coalfields Ltd., Darbhanga House, Ranchi, the petitioner was served with a notice in the year 1997 directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.59,33,484/, which, according to the Income Tax Department, was of the amount of 12 different parties, against whom there may be some proceedings pending in the Income Tax Department and when the petitioner did not remit this amount, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Varanasi, on 10.3.1998 served a notice of attachment under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 upon the State Bank of India, Ranchi Branch, which was the banker of the petitioner and by that notice, the Bank was directed to send a draft of Rs.59,33,484/from the account of the petitioner. The Bank being bound by the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Varanasi, remitted the amount of Rs.59,33,484/. 2. The petitioner's contention is that subsequently, the petitioner found that in the amount of Rs.59,33,484/, which was the amount of three different parties, namely, (i) M/s. Ram Bachan Prasad, Rohtas, (ii) M/s. Diamond Coal Commission Agent (UP) and (iii) M/s. Sambhu Coal Traders, have also been remitted to the Income Tax Department. The petitioner submitted various letters to the concerned authorities for refund of that amount of Rs.6,80,470.45, which is petitioner's money and it was not related to above 12 parties whose list was enclosed with the notice served by the Department upon the petitioner and the Bank. This prayer was not accepted by the Income Tax Department after long correspondence and vide letter dated 13.9.2002, it was conveyed to the petitioner that there is no provision in Income Tax Act, 1961, to issue refund to the third party; so your claim of refund money is not possible and if at all there is any refund, it will be refunded to the concerned assessee. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar facts and circumstances in W.P (T) No.4294/2001 and W.P (T) No.4038/2001, vide order of the same date, i.e. 20.3.2002, the Income Tax Department was directed to refund the amount in question, which was subject-matter in those two writ petitions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar facts and circumstances in W.P (T) No.4294/2001 and W.P (T) No.4038/2001, vide order of the same date, i.e. 20.3.2002, the Income Tax Department was directed to refund the amount in question, which was subject-matter in those two writ petitions. It is also submitted that the authorities cannot retain petitioner's money, which was remitted by the Bank by mistake to them under impression that this money of Rs.6,80,470.45 is the money of 12 parties against whom order was passed by the Income Tax Department under section 226(3). 4. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that there is no provision in law under which refund could have been given to the petitioner and further it is submitted that if amount was to be refunded, then the refund could have been given to the assessee only. Learned counsel for the Revenue also submitted that order under section 226(3) was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Varanasi and therefore, the petitioner should have approached to that authority but he also, according to the learned counsel for the Revenue, could not have issued refund order, as refund could have been to assessee only. 5. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is clear from the facts of the case that the petitioner's banker was served with a notice/order under section 226(3)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Such an order can be issued to the person who is holding money of either assessee or any person against whom there may be liability or likely to be liability of tax under the provisions of the Act, 1961. The person, holding any money of that assessee or any other person, is only liable to remit the money of that assessee or any other person to the Revenue in pursuance of the said notice/order. The person, holding any money of that assessee or any other person, is only liable to remit the money of that assessee or any other person to the Revenue in pursuance of the said notice/order. If, in response to the notice/ order under section 226(3)(i), excess money is demanded or received by the Assessing Officer or Tax Recovery Officer, then or on the ground that money, which has been attached or sought by the Assessing Officer, is not belonging to the assessee or any such person, then the person to whom notice/order has been issued under section 226(3)(i) may submit his objection under clause 3(vi) of the same section and the Assessing Officer or such Tax Recovery Officer may withdraw the notice and drop the proceeding. As per sub-clause (vii), the person who complains against the notice issued under sub-clause (i) also may submit on oath that the sum demanded or any part thereof is not due to the assessee or that he does not hold any money for or on account of the assessee and in that case, such person is not required to pay any sum or part thereof, however, subject to the condition that subsequently if it is discovered that such statement was false in any material particulars, such person shall be personally liable to the Assessing Officer or Tax Recovery Officer to the extent of his own liability to the assessee. 6. As per section 226(3)(vii), the Assessing Officer or Tax Recovery Officer may, at any time, amend or revoke such notice issued under section 226(3)(i) of the Act, 1961. Therefore, the contention of the Revenue that there is no provision for refund of money to any person other than the assessee or for whose money garnishee notice under section 226(3)(i) was issued, is legally wrong. 7. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and it is held that not only there is provision for refund of money to the person from whom money has been recovered under section 226(3)(i) of the Act, 1961, but it is obligatory upon the Assessing Officer or Tax Recovery Officer to refund the amount which have been recovered wrongly and which is not of the assessee or any other person who is liable for tax or penalty under the Act, 1961. 8. 8. Considering the above, the Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue whether the Revenue has recovered the amount which was not belonging to the parties for whom garnishee notice/order under section 226(3)(i) of the Act, 1961 was issued through the petitioner's banker.