https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249968 The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the Tax Recovery Officer's order and the attachment of the petitioner's assets. The court directed the restoration of shares and refund of the attached bank amount, emphasizing the officer lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes. The court held the proceedings under Section 226(3) of the Act were unsustainable due to improper notice service and lack of inquiry into the petitioner's denial of liability. en-us Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249968 The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the Tax Recovery Officer's order and the attachment of the petitioner's assets. The court directed the restoration of shares and refund of the attached bank amount, emphasizing the officer lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes. The court held the proceedings under Section 226(3) of the Act were unsustainable due to improper notice service and lack of inquiry into the petitioner's denial of liability. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249968