TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the notification extending the period under rule 68B was valid and, if not, whether the auction sale conducted after the prescribed period was time-barred.
Analysis: Rule 68B, inserted by Parliament, prescribed a three-year period for sale of attached property. The notification issued by the Board purported to extend that period, but no power under section 119 authorised the Board to amend a statutory rule enacted by Parliament. Rule 94 did not justify such a substantive alteration. The notified extension was therefore without effect, and the sale had to be tested on the basis of the original three-year period.
Conclusion: The notification was invalid and the auction sale was beyond time; the sale was set aside in favour of the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
