https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164142 In a SARFAESI auction, writ jurisdiction was treated as available where a third-party purchaser challenged alleged procedural defects in the sale process rather than measures under section 13(4), so the alternate remedy under section 17 did not bar the petition. The sale notice had to disclose all material encumbrances and liabilities known to the secured creditor under Rule 8(6); failure to mention a sales tax attachment was treated as a material non-disclosure, so the successful bidder was not bound to complete the sale and was entitled to refund of the advance. en-us Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164142 In a SARFAESI auction, writ jurisdiction was treated as available where a third-party purchaser challenged alleged procedural defects in the sale process rather than measures under section 13(4), so the alternate remedy under section 17 did not bar the petition. The sale notice had to disclose all material encumbrances and liabilities known to the secured creditor under Rule 8(6); failure to mention a sales tax attachment was treated as a material non-disclosure, so the successful bidder was not bound to complete the sale and was entitled to refund of the advance. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164142