https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127631 A writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable to quash recovery proceedings and attachment of property where the petitioner's title was disputed. The Court treated the real ownership issue, including the allegation of benami holding, as a disputed question of fact that could not be resolved on affidavit evidence in writ proceedings. It also noted that an efficacious civil suit was available for determination of title and consequential relief. The objection to recovery by the Additional Collector was not entertained at that stage, and the statutory scheme allowed authorised exercise of the Collector's powers. The attachment challenge was rejected, and the parties were left to pursue civil remedies. en-us Mon, 15 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:48:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127631 A writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable to quash recovery proceedings and attachment of property where the petitioner's title was disputed. The Court treated the real ownership issue, including the allegation of benami holding, as a disputed question of fact that could not be resolved on affidavit evidence in writ proceedings. It also noted that an efficacious civil suit was available for determination of title and consequential relief. The objection to recovery by the Additional Collector was not entertained at that stage, and the statutory scheme allowed authorised exercise of the Collector's powers. The attachment challenge was rejected, and the parties were left to pursue civil remedies. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 15 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127631