https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344029 Rule 68B limitation for recovery does not run in isolation where a settlement order is linked to instalment compliance, extension requests, and continuing proceedings before the Settlement Commission. On the facts, the petitioner had sought time and continued to seek accommodation, so the court held that the original settlement order could not be detached from the later compliance process to defeat attachment or sale. The order under section 245D(4) was also not treated as having attained the immutable finality claimed by the petitioner, because the statutory settlement scheme preserved control over payment, default consequences, and related proceedings. The recovery steps were therefore upheld. en-us Mon, 05 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Feb 2026 17:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344029 Rule 68B limitation for recovery does not run in isolation where a settlement order is linked to instalment compliance, extension requests, and continuing proceedings before the Settlement Commission. On the facts, the petitioner had sought time and continued to seek accommodation, so the court held that the original settlement order could not be detached from the later compliance process to defeat attachment or sale. The order under section 245D(4) was also not treated as having attained the immutable finality claimed by the petitioner, because the statutory settlement scheme preserved control over payment, default consequences, and related proceedings. The recovery steps were therefore upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 05 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344029