https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7627 Prior attachment by revenue authorities continued to operate after the attached property was sold in court auction, so the attachment followed the sale proceeds. On that basis, no fresh attachment of the proceeds under Order 21 Rule 52 CPC was required. The Income-tax Officer's application under section 151 CPC was held maintainable because the earlier revenue attachment had already secured the claim and the procedural objection was rejected. Authorities cited against maintainability were distinguished as turning on different procedural contexts and not on a subsisting prior attachment. The revenue was therefore entitled to assert priority over the sale proceeds. en-us Fri, 05 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7627 Prior attachment by revenue authorities continued to operate after the attached property was sold in court auction, so the attachment followed the sale proceeds. On that basis, no fresh attachment of the proceeds under Order 21 Rule 52 CPC was required. The Income-tax Officer's application under section 151 CPC was held maintainable because the earlier revenue attachment had already secured the claim and the procedural objection was rejected. Authorities cited against maintainability were distinguished as turning on different procedural contexts and not on a subsisting prior attachment. The revenue was therefore entitled to assert priority over the sale proceeds. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 05 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7627