https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209841 An agreement holder of immovable property cannot challenge a lawful attachment made by the tax department for the vendor's arrears when the property is recovered under the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act. The Court held that, because the petitioner was not a party to the recovery proceedings and was not an aggrieved person, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was unavailable. The attachment was found to have been made in accordance with law, and the absence of locus standi meant the writ petition was not maintainable and failed for want of merit. en-us Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209841 An agreement holder of immovable property cannot challenge a lawful attachment made by the tax department for the vendor's arrears when the property is recovered under the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act. The Court held that, because the petitioner was not a party to the recovery proceedings and was not an aggrieved person, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was unavailable. The attachment was found to have been made in accordance with law, and the absence of locus standi meant the writ petition was not maintainable and failed for want of merit. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209841