Provisional attachment under Income-tax law becomes infructuous once the six-month validity lapses without extension.

A writ challenge to a provisional attachment under section 281B of the Income-tax Act became infructuous because the petitioner's own case was that the order had lapsed after six months and no extension had been granted. The HC held that, once the attachment had ceased to operate by efflux of time, nothing survived for adjudication and there was no need to examine the additional challenge concerning attachment of movable properties. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the provisional attachment order survived after the order had, according to the petitioner's own case, lapsed under section 281B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The impugned order was treated as an order under section 281B valid only for six months unless extended. Since the petitioner itself stated that no extension had been granted and that the order had lapsed, the Court held that nothing survived for adjudication. In view of this conclusion, the Court found it unnecessary to examine the further challenge to the validity of the attachment of movable properties.

Conclusion: The writ petition could not be maintained and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a provisional attachment order under section 281B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has lapsed by efflux of time and no extension is shown, the challenge to that order becomes infructuous and does not call for further adjudication.

---