Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the proposed auction sale of immovable properties attached for recovery of income tax dues was barred by limitation under Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the petitioner's consent to sale precluded the challenge.
Analysis: Rule 68B introduced a specific time limit for sale of immovable property attached for tax recovery, requiring such sale to be made within three years from the end of the financial year in which the demand became conclusive or final, subject to the stated exclusions and extensions. The attached properties had been under attachment since 1997, whereas the sale proclamation was issued only in 2019, far beyond the permissible period. The statutory consequence under sub-rule (4) is that, on expiry of limitation, the attachment is deemed to have been vacated. The petitioner's letter consenting to sale was not an unconditional waiver and, in any event, statutory limitation goes to the root of the Revenue's power and cannot be overridden by consent.
Conclusion: The auction sale was time-barred under Rule 68B and could not be sustained. The challenge succeeded notwithstanding the petitioner's consent.
Ratio Decidendi: Where Rule 68B applies, the Revenue must complete sale of attached immovable property within the prescribed period, and any sale beyond that period is invalid; consent by the defaulter or heir cannot validate a sale prohibited by statute.