https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14118 Sale proclamation and auction of attached immovable property were challenged on the ground of no fresh notice and breach of natural justice, but the objection failed because the petitioners had already objected to the attachment order and those objections had been considered and rejected. Limitation under rule 68B of the Second Schedule was also disputed, but the deeming rule in sub-rule (3) applied to fix the relevant date, and the three-year period expired on 31 March 1996, while the sale was conducted on 18 July 1995. The sale was therefore within time, and the writ petition was dismissed, subject to the petitioners' liberty to pursue the statutory civil remedy under rule 11(6). en-us Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Dec 2024 10:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14118 Sale proclamation and auction of attached immovable property were challenged on the ground of no fresh notice and breach of natural justice, but the objection failed because the petitioners had already objected to the attachment order and those objections had been considered and rejected. Limitation under rule 68B of the Second Schedule was also disputed, but the deeming rule in sub-rule (3) applied to fix the relevant date, and the three-year period expired on 31 March 1996, while the sale was conducted on 18 July 1995. The sale was therefore within time, and the writ petition was dismissed, subject to the petitioners' liberty to pursue the statutory civil remedy under rule 11(6). Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14118