2001 (3) TMI 35

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....quence of not holding the sale within the period allowed by the rule. The consequence is that whatever might have happened or might have been done by an assessee or by the Revenue, if the sale is not held within the period specified in rule 68B, after excluding the period specified in rule 68B(2), the sale cannot be held after the expiry of that period of limitation specified therein and any order of attachment that might have been issued shall be deemed to have been vacated. Tax Recovery Officers are, therefore, required to be extremely alert and take steps promptly within the time frame provided in the rule. Any failure to do so will result in the Department being disabled from proceeding against the immovable property which might hav....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....faulter to postpone the sale. A request for postponement of the sale is not equated to an acknowledgment of the liability, so as to enable the Revenue to compute a fresh period of limitation. This is so because, after the demand against the defaulter has become conclusive or final, the admission or denial of the defaulter is wholly irrelevant to the enforcement of the demand. The defaulter is bound by the demand and the Revenue is entitled to enforce the same. The factual matrix in which the aforementioned rules are required to be applied in this case is that a proclamation of sale was issued on February 2, 1996, in respect of valuable immovable property, which had belonged to the mother of the petitioner, who was a partner in a firm, Raj....