https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285020 High Court jurisdiction was not barred by Section 226(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, because the challenge concerned the legality of the recovery mode after winding up, not the assessment or levy itself. The Court held that it could examine whether recovery under Section 46 of the Income-tax Act was authorised in the circumstances. It further held that such statutory tax recovery was a proceeding of legal character within Section 171 of the Companies Act, 1913, because it involved formal coercive steps against the company. Leave of the winding-up Court was therefore required before recovery could continue. en-us Mon, 13 Nov 1944 00:00:00 +0630 Sat, 21 Dec 2019 17:29:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285020 High Court jurisdiction was not barred by Section 226(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, because the challenge concerned the legality of the recovery mode after winding up, not the assessment or levy itself. The Court held that it could examine whether recovery under Section 46 of the Income-tax Act was authorised in the circumstances. It further held that such statutory tax recovery was a proceeding of legal character within Section 171 of the Companies Act, 1913, because it involved formal coercive steps against the company. Leave of the winding-up Court was therefore required before recovery could continue. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 13 Nov 1944 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285020