<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1986 (7) TMI 11 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22681</link>
    <description>Property vested in an official receiver by adjudication under insolvency law cannot be divested for tax recovery unless a specific statutory provision authorises divestment, and the revenue must pursue its remedy before the insolvency court. A tax recovery notice does not override completed vesting or the receiver&#039;s authority to administer and sell the asset. The auction conducted by the receiver was also upheld because the property was sold after due notice, bidders participated, and there was no showing of suppression, procedural unfairness, or a defect in the upset price sufficient to invalidate the sale. The revenue&#039;s challenge failed, and the appellate orders were maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:52:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=61680" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (7) TMI 11 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22681</link>
      <description>Property vested in an official receiver by adjudication under insolvency law cannot be divested for tax recovery unless a specific statutory provision authorises divestment, and the revenue must pursue its remedy before the insolvency court. A tax recovery notice does not override completed vesting or the receiver&#039;s authority to administer and sell the asset. The auction conducted by the receiver was also upheld because the property was sold after due notice, bidders participated, and there was no showing of suppression, procedural unfairness, or a defect in the upset price sufficient to invalidate the sale. The revenue&#039;s challenge failed, and the appellate orders were maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22681</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>