https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766326 In a tax recovery matter, unconditional interim protection against proclamation and sale of attached immovable property was refused because the writ challenge did not assail the foundational liability and attachment orders, the demand had attained finality, and no serious financial hardship was shown. The Court held that Article 226 relief in fiscal matters is discretionary and requires the balance of convenience, not merely a prima facie case, to justify interim restraint. Interim protection was continued only conditionally, subject to deposit of 50% of the demanded amount within eight weeks, failing which the protection would lapse; the possession restraint and status quo direction were maintained. en-us Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Feb 2026 12:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766326 In a tax recovery matter, unconditional interim protection against proclamation and sale of attached immovable property was refused because the writ challenge did not assail the foundational liability and attachment orders, the demand had attained finality, and no serious financial hardship was shown. The Court held that Article 226 relief in fiscal matters is discretionary and requires the balance of convenience, not merely a prima facie case, to justify interim restraint. Interim protection was continued only conditionally, subject to deposit of 50% of the demanded amount within eight weeks, failing which the protection would lapse; the possession restraint and status quo direction were maintained. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766326