R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J.

Rule 68B in Schedule II to the Income-tax Act, 1961, introduced with effect from June 1, 1992, is imperative, and specifies the exact period available to the Revenue, to hold the sale of property attached for recovery of arrears of tax, interest, fine/penalty or any other sum; the period by which it may be extended; the period which is to be excluded while computing the period specified in sub-rule (1), and also sets out the consequence 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 have been attached for recovery of the arrears due to the Revenue.

Rule 66 in the same Schedule empowers the Tax Recovery Officer to postpone the sale to enable the defaulter to raise the amount due under a certificate, if the defaulter satisfies the Tax Recovery Officer that there is no reason to believe that the amount of the certificate may be raised by mortgage or lease or private sale of such property, or some part thereof, or of any other immovable property of the defaulter. The Tax Recovery Officer may, in such circumstances, on the application of the defaulter, postpone the sale on such terms and for such period as he thinks proper, to enable the defaulter to raise the amount.

Rule 66, however, does not enable the Tax Recovery Officer to postpone the sale beyond the period of limitation specified in rule 68B or to compute a fresh period of limitation from the date on which the defaulter requested for postponement. While granting postponement, the officer, acting under rule 66, must necessarily have regard to rule 68B and ensure that the sale, if required to be held, will be held within the period prescribed in rule 68B. The limitation prescribed under rule 68B cannot be extended by the Tax Recovery Officer granting a long postponement of the sale on an application by the defaulter.

The rules in Schedule II do not anywhere provide for the enlargement of the period of limitation for the sale of the immovable property of the defaulter on a request being made by the defaulter 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, Raja and Raja Beedi Factory. She died in 1984. The property inherited by her son was sought to be sold under the proclamation issued 12 years after her death, on the basis of a certificate issued by the Income-tax Officer, on March 28, 1991, for recovery of the sum of Rs. 6, 53, 759. The assessment years for which the tax was in arrears were not set out in the proclamation. It is, however, obvious that the amount must relate to a period prior to March 28, 1991. After this writ petition was entertained by this court, this court did not stay the sale