https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346328 A coercive sale based on an alleged attachment order cannot be sustained unless the foundational attachment is produced and proved before the Court. Here, the attachment dated 23 February 1976 was not produced, so the Court could not verify whether it covered the immovable property or related receivables; the writ challenge to the bank sale therefore did not obtain relief, especially as related issues were already before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. On the same record deficiency, the earlier sale notice and proclamation of sale were set aside because the departmental right to proceed to sale remained unsubstantiated. en-us Thu, 03 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Aug 2017 13:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346328 A coercive sale based on an alleged attachment order cannot be sustained unless the foundational attachment is produced and proved before the Court. Here, the attachment dated 23 February 1976 was not produced, so the Court could not verify whether it covered the immovable property or related receivables; the writ challenge to the bank sale therefore did not obtain relief, especially as related issues were already before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. On the same record deficiency, the earlier sale notice and proclamation of sale were set aside because the departmental right to proceed to sale remained unsubstantiated. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 03 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346328