https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234310 A remand expressed in open terms allowed the High Court to examine the validity of the auction sale because the earlier order had not finally decided whether the sale was vitiated by non-compliance with recovery rules. Section 29 of the RDDB Act was read as incorporating the Second and Third Schedules to the Income-tax Act subject to necessary modifications, and the phrase "as far as possible" did not permit disregard of mandatory requirements that were practicable in the recovery framework. Rule 57, requiring immediate deposit of 25% of the purchase money and payment of the balance within the stipulated time, was treated as mandatory; non-compliance rendered the auction ineffective in law. en-us Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234310 A remand expressed in open terms allowed the High Court to examine the validity of the auction sale because the earlier order had not finally decided whether the sale was vitiated by non-compliance with recovery rules. Section 29 of the RDDB Act was read as incorporating the Second and Third Schedules to the Income-tax Act subject to necessary modifications, and the phrase "as far as possible" did not permit disregard of mandatory requirements that were practicable in the recovery framework. Rule 57, requiring immediate deposit of 25% of the purchase money and payment of the balance within the stipulated time, was treated as mandatory; non-compliance rendered the auction ineffective in law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234310