https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5541 An agreement holder whose claimed interest arose only from a post-notice agreement to sell could not invoke rule 60 of the Second Schedule to set aside a tax recovery auction sale. A mere agreement to sell does not create a legal interest in the property, and an arrangement entered into after service of notice under rule 2 is hit by rule 16(1); the later attachment regime under rules 48 and 51 also applies. Because the claimant was neither the defaulter nor an authorised representative, the statutory right to seek setting aside of the sale was unavailable, and rejection of the application was legally justified. en-us Fri, 11 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5541 An agreement holder whose claimed interest arose only from a post-notice agreement to sell could not invoke rule 60 of the Second Schedule to set aside a tax recovery auction sale. A mere agreement to sell does not create a legal interest in the property, and an arrangement entered into after service of notice under rule 2 is hit by rule 16(1); the later attachment regime under rules 48 and 51 also applies. Because the claimant was neither the defaulter nor an authorised representative, the statutory right to seek setting aside of the sale was unavailable, and rejection of the application was legally justified. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 11 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5541