https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11341 Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act was held to operate prospectively, so it could not invalidate recovery and auction proceedings founded on assessment years that had already become final and conclusive before 1 June 1992. The Court reasoned that a later limitation provision cannot be read retrospectively to defeat pending tax recovery steps or to impair the revenue's vested right to collect tax under final assessment orders. Relief under article 226 was also refused because writ jurisdiction is discretionary and no equitable ground existed to interfere with the admitted recoveries on a technical objection. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Dec 2024 10:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11341 Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act was held to operate prospectively, so it could not invalidate recovery and auction proceedings founded on assessment years that had already become final and conclusive before 1 June 1992. The Court reasoned that a later limitation provision cannot be read retrospectively to defeat pending tax recovery steps or to impair the revenue's vested right to collect tax under final assessment orders. Relief under article 226 was also refused because writ jurisdiction is discretionary and no equitable ground existed to interfere with the admitted recoveries on a technical objection. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11341