Foundational attachment order must be produced before coercive sale can be sustained or set aside.

A coercive sale based on an alleged attachment order cannot be sustained unless the foundational attachment is produced and proved before the Court. Here, the attachment dated 23 February 1976 was not produced, so the Court could not verify whether it covered the immovable property or related receivables; the writ challenge to the bank sale therefore did not obtain relief, especially as related issues were already before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. On the same record deficiency, the earlier sale notice and proclamation of sale were set aside because the departmental right to proceed to sale remained unsubstantiated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the bank sale could succeed when the foundational order of attachment said to support the tax department's claim was not produced before the Court. (ii) Whether the sale notice and proclamation of sale issued in the earlier writ petition were liable to be set aside for the same reason.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the bank sale could succeed when the foundational order of attachment said to support the tax department's claim was not produced before the Court.

Analysis: The challenge to the sale depended upon an order of attachment dated 23 February 1976. That order was not produced despite opportunity, and its scope and extent therefore remained unknown. Without the underlying attachment order, the Court could not assess whether the alleged attachment covered the immovable property or any receivable arising from it. The sale had also been questioned on issues that were already pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, where the parties' contentions could be examined in accordance with law. In these circumstances, the Court declined to grant relief in the writ petition.

Conclusion: The challenge to the bank sale was not entertained, and no relief was granted in the writ petition.

Issue (ii): Whether the sale notice and proclamation of sale issued in the earlier writ petition were liable to be set aside for the same reason.

Analysis: The earlier writ petition also rested on the asserted attachment of 23 February 1976. Since that attachment order was not produced before the Court, the foundational basis for issuing the sale notice and proclamation of sale remained unproved. In the absence of the underlying order, the Court held that the right claimed by the department to proceed with sale could not be tested on record.

Conclusion: The sale notice and proclamation of sale were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were disposed of on the basis that the bank-sale challenge was left without relief, while the earlier sale notice and proclamation were invalidated for want of the foundational attachment order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the validity of coercive sale action is founded on an alleged attachment order, the authority must produce that foundational order before the Court; absent such proof, relief may be refused or the sale process set aside depending on the proceeding.

---