https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25504 Service of a notice under rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 gave the revenue priority over later private execution claims. Because rule 16 barred the defaulter from dealing with the attached property and prevented a civil court from issuing execution against it, and rule 51 related the attachment back to the date of notice, the decree-holder's subsequent decree and attachment could not prevail over the Department's recovery claim. The Department was therefore entitled to payment out of the money deposited in court, confined to the arrears of the particular firm whose liability was established. en-us Thu, 13 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:21:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25504 Service of a notice under rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 gave the revenue priority over later private execution claims. Because rule 16 barred the defaulter from dealing with the attached property and prevented a civil court from issuing execution against it, and rule 51 related the attachment back to the date of notice, the decree-holder's subsequent decree and attachment could not prevail over the Department's recovery claim. The Department was therefore entitled to payment out of the money deposited in court, confined to the arrears of the particular firm whose liability was established. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 13 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25504