https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37684 Objections to a restraint order in income-tax recovery proceedings had to be decided before coercive recovery could continue. The Tax Recovery Officer had not applied his mind to the petitioner's objections and had not disposed of them at all, so proceeding with recovery was impermissible. A technical defect in the heading or provision cited for the objections was immaterial where the objections otherwise fell within the scope of the relevant rule. The operative requirement was prior consideration and disposal of the objections before further recovery steps. en-us Fri, 06 Jan 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:18:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37684 Objections to a restraint order in income-tax recovery proceedings had to be decided before coercive recovery could continue. The Tax Recovery Officer had not applied his mind to the petitioner's objections and had not disposed of them at all, so proceeding with recovery was impermissible. A technical defect in the heading or provision cited for the objections was immaterial where the objections otherwise fell within the scope of the relevant rule. The operative requirement was prior consideration and disposal of the objections before further recovery steps. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 06 Jan 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37684