https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352861 The court found the writ petition under Article 226 maintainable as the Tax Recovery Officer failed to exercise jurisdiction under Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act. It was determined that the Officer did not follow procedural requirements, relied on counsel's opinion, and lacked necessary satisfaction in the order. The court quashed the order, directing a reevaluation in compliance with Rule 11 and providing the petitioner a fair hearing within two months. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute as specified. en-us Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:11:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352861 The court found the writ petition under Article 226 maintainable as the Tax Recovery Officer failed to exercise jurisdiction under Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act. It was determined that the Officer did not follow procedural requirements, relied on counsel's opinion, and lacked necessary satisfaction in the order. The court quashed the order, directing a reevaluation in compliance with Rule 11 and providing the petitioner a fair hearing within two months. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute as specified. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352861