https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356685 Proceedings that substantively challenge a Tax Recovery Officer's order under the Second Schedule, including connected suit, appeal, review and writ steps, may be treated as excludable for computing the Rule 68B limitation for sale of attached property, so the fresh attachment was not time-barred. A writ challenge to the fresh attachment and consequential notices was also held unsuitable for Article 226 relief where the petitioner's title arose from post-attachment transfers that were void against the attachment, and where discretionary relief would reward conduct inconsistent with an earlier undertaking to clear arrears. On those grounds, the recovery action was left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 06 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Mar 2018 14:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356685 Proceedings that substantively challenge a Tax Recovery Officer's order under the Second Schedule, including connected suit, appeal, review and writ steps, may be treated as excludable for computing the Rule 68B limitation for sale of attached property, so the fresh attachment was not time-barred. A writ challenge to the fresh attachment and consequential notices was also held unsuitable for Article 226 relief where the petitioner's title arose from post-attachment transfers that were void against the attachment, and where discretionary relief would reward conduct inconsistent with an earlier undertaking to clear arrears. On those grounds, the recovery action was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 06 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356685