https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6742 Rule 16(1) of the Income-tax Rules was treated as a recovery measure that restricts a defaulter from mortgaging, charging, leasing, or otherwise dealing with property after notice, without preventing the carrying on of business, so it was held to be a reasonable restriction and not a violation of Article 19(1)(g). The Court also rejected reliance on Article 358 because the action concerned pre-existing tax dues. Under Rule 73(1), the recorded material, including post-notice dealings and non-payment despite available means, was held sufficient to support the inference of obstruction and to satisfy the statutory conditions for arrest and detention. en-us Tue, 01 Feb 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6742 Rule 16(1) of the Income-tax Rules was treated as a recovery measure that restricts a defaulter from mortgaging, charging, leasing, or otherwise dealing with property after notice, without preventing the carrying on of business, so it was held to be a reasonable restriction and not a violation of Article 19(1)(g). The Court also rejected reliance on Article 358 because the action concerned pre-existing tax dues. Under Rule 73(1), the recorded material, including post-notice dealings and non-payment despite available means, was held sufficient to support the inference of obstruction and to satisfy the statutory conditions for arrest and detention. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 01 Feb 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6742