https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358566 After service of notice under Rule 2 of the Second Schedule, a transfer by the defaulter could not defeat Revenue recovery, and an attachment of the immovable property was sustained because the purchasers had no enforceable interest on the notice date and the attachment related back to that notice. However, the Tax Recovery Officer had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the sale transactions as void or null; that consequence could operate for recovery purposes, but any declaration annulling the transfer had to be pursued before the civil court. The challenge to the attachment failed, while the declaration of nullity was quashed. en-us Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Nov 2018 17:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358566 After service of notice under Rule 2 of the Second Schedule, a transfer by the defaulter could not defeat Revenue recovery, and an attachment of the immovable property was sustained because the purchasers had no enforceable interest on the notice date and the attachment related back to that notice. However, the Tax Recovery Officer had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the sale transactions as void or null; that consequence could operate for recovery purposes, but any declaration annulling the transfer had to be pursued before the civil court. The challenge to the attachment failed, while the declaration of nullity was quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358566