https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193608 A recovery officer under the recovery statute, read with Rule 11 of Schedule II to the Income-tax Act, 1961, could examine possession for execution purposes but had no jurisdiction to adjudicate title to immovable property. By treating the petitioners' title as ineffective and sustaining attachment despite an earlier court-sanctioned sale, the officer acted beyond the limited statutory power. The availability of an appeal under Section 30 did not bar writ relief because the impugned order was made without jurisdiction. The attachment and recovery order were therefore set aside. en-us Mon, 01 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193608 A recovery officer under the recovery statute, read with Rule 11 of Schedule II to the Income-tax Act, 1961, could examine possession for execution purposes but had no jurisdiction to adjudicate title to immovable property. By treating the petitioners' title as ineffective and sustaining attachment despite an earlier court-sanctioned sale, the officer acted beyond the limited statutory power. The availability of an appeal under Section 30 did not bar writ relief because the impugned order was made without jurisdiction. The attachment and recovery order were therefore set aside. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 01 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193608