https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276146 Private transfer of property already under statutory attachment under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was treated as void against the recovery claim because Rule 16(2) of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied through Section 8-G. The court noted that the impugned sale was executed despite notice of attachment and without clearing the statutory dues, so it could be ignored for recovery purposes. It further held that the recovery framework permitted the Recovery Officer to proceed afresh, including by conducting a fresh auction, and that the writ remedy could be used to remove the barrier created by the void alienation. en-us Mon, 30 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Oct 2018 15:33:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276146 Private transfer of property already under statutory attachment under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was treated as void against the recovery claim because Rule 16(2) of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied through Section 8-G. The court noted that the impugned sale was executed despite notice of attachment and without clearing the statutory dues, so it could be ignored for recovery purposes. It further held that the recovery framework permitted the Recovery Officer to proceed afresh, including by conducting a fresh auction, and that the writ remedy could be used to remove the barrier created by the void alienation. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 30 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276146