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 sale of attached properties should be stayed pending disposal of the appellant's tax appeals before the Tribunal, and whether limited equitable protection should be granted in respect of the residential flat.
Analysis: The appellant was a notified person with substantial income-tax arrears and no stay of recovery had been granted by the Tribunal. In that situation, sale could not be postponed merely because appeals were pending. At the same time, one property was claimed as the family residence, and the Court moulded relief on equitable considerations by directing that the other properties be proceeded against first. The Court also clarified that the appellant remained free to seek stay from the Tribunal, and any stay granted there would govern the recovery process. The order was confined to the four identified properties. The request for impleadment by alleged mortgagees was refused, with liberty to approach the Special Court.
Conclusion: The request to stay the proposed sale was rejected, but the Court granted limited equitable protection by directing that the residential flat be sold only if the sale proceeds of the other properties proved insufficient.
Final Conclusion: The appellant did not obtain a stay against recovery, and the attached properties could be sold in the sequence directed by the Court, while preserving the appellant's liberty to seek relief before the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
