https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408398 A writ petition challenging an attachment-related revenue communication was held not maintainable because the dispute turned on contested facts requiring examination of explanations, objections, and documents before the competent authority. The communication was treated as only a preliminary step by the Tax Recovery Officer for collecting particulars and initiating further action, not a final adjudication. The Court also noted that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy under Rule 11 of Schedule II of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which had to be pursued in the manner known to law. Accordingly, interference under Article 226 was declined and the petition was dismissed. en-us Sat, 17 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jun 2021 09:26:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408398 A writ petition challenging an attachment-related revenue communication was held not maintainable because the dispute turned on contested facts requiring examination of explanations, objections, and documents before the competent authority. The communication was treated as only a preliminary step by the Tax Recovery Officer for collecting particulars and initiating further action, not a final adjudication. The Court also noted that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy under Rule 11 of Schedule II of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which had to be pursued in the manner known to law. Accordingly, interference under Article 226 was declined and the petition was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Sat, 17 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408398