https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5991 The dominant issue was whether a Tax Recovery Officer could confirm a tax-recovery sale when the underlying tax demands had ceased to exist. The SC held that confirmation under the Second Schedule makes a sale absolute, but the officer must refuse confirmation and annul the sale if, before confirmation, it becomes apparent that the sale was founded on a non-existent or fictitious demand; accordingly, the sale and the confirmation order were quashed. A further issue was non-service of the s.156 demand notice: the SC held this went to the root and the HC erred in rejecting it on technical grounds; this reinforced setting aside the sale. The SC also directed interest on the amount retained by the revenue from the date the demand ceased until refund, on equitable grounds. en-us Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 May 2026 18:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5991 The dominant issue was whether a Tax Recovery Officer could confirm a tax-recovery sale when the underlying tax demands had ceased to exist. The SC held that confirmation under the Second Schedule makes a sale absolute, but the officer must refuse confirmation and annul the sale if, before confirmation, it becomes apparent that the sale was founded on a non-existent or fictitious demand; accordingly, the sale and the confirmation order were quashed. A further issue was non-service of the s.156 demand notice: the SC held this went to the root and the HC erred in rejecting it on technical grounds; this reinforced setting aside the sale. The SC also directed interest on the amount retained by the revenue from the date the demand ceased until refund, on equitable grounds. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5991