https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358669 A private transfer of immovable property made while a tax recovery attachment was subsisting was void against the Revenue's enforceable claims, and the purchaser could not rely on Section 281 because the transfer was governed by the attachment regime under the Second Schedule. The later expiry of the limitation period under Rule 68B did not retrospectively validate an already void purchase or defeat recovery rights. The appointment of a receiver further showed that recovery machinery remained operative, so the Revenue could proceed against the property through the statutory framework. en-us Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358669 A private transfer of immovable property made while a tax recovery attachment was subsisting was void against the Revenue's enforceable claims, and the purchaser could not rely on Section 281 because the transfer was governed by the attachment regime under the Second Schedule. The later expiry of the limitation period under Rule 68B did not retrospectively validate an already void purchase or defeat recovery rights. The appointment of a receiver further showed that recovery machinery remained operative, so the Revenue could proceed against the property through the statutory framework. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358669