TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 recovery officer could adjudicate the petitioners' title to the property and sustain the attachment despite the prior court sale, and whether the availability of an appeal under the recovery statute barred writ relief.
Analysis: The recovery officer's function under the recovery statute, read with Rule 11 of Schedule II to the Income-tax Act, 1961, was confined to examining possession and did not extend to deciding title. Once the officer proceeded to determine that the mortgagor could not have created a valid mortgage in favour of another bank and, on that basis, treated the petitioners' title as ineffective, the officer travelled beyond the jurisdiction conferred by law. The existence of an appeal under Section 30 did not prevent writ intervention where the impugned order was made without jurisdiction. The attachment also could not stand once it was contrary to the earlier court-sanctioned sale in favour of the petitioners.
Conclusion: The challenge succeeded. The order of the recovery officer and the consequential attachment were set aside.
Final Conclusion: The petitions were allowed because the recovery officer acted beyond jurisdiction in deciding title and in continuing the attachment against property already sold under orders of the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: A recovery officer under the recovery statute may examine possession for execution purposes, but cannot adjudicate title to immovable property, and an order made in excess of that limited jurisdiction is amenable to writ correction notwithstanding an alternative appellate remedy.
TaxTMI 
