Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Kumari Kanagam – Appellant
Versus
Tax Recovery Officer – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessment and attachment orders against the petitioner (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's claims regarding the expiration of limitation period (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's examination of the finality of assessment orders (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. determination of limitation period for recovery proceedings (Para 11) |
| 5. implications of legal fiction in attachment orders (Para 12) |
| 6. dismissal of the writ petition (Para 13) |
ORDER :
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
An assessment order in respect of block assessment was issued in respect of the petitioner on 22.12.2006 imposing tax liability of Rs.68,14,378/-. The petitioner filed an appeal before this Court in TCA No.128 of 2006, which was dismissed on 22.08.2012. A Special Leave Petition was filed against the said judgment in Special Leave Petition [C] No.6942 of 2015. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 5.05.2015.
2. Meanwhile, pursuant to the issuance of certificate under Section 222 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the I-T Act), an order of attachment was issued by the Tax Recovery Officer in respect of the immovable property of the petitioner on 06.11.1998. Much later, pursuant to certificate dated 01.05.2018 for the r
Limitation period for tax recovery under Rule 68B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is reckoned from the date of finality of the assessment order, which was confirmed post the dismissal of the special leav....
An execution petition filed within the limitation period cannot be dismissed on grounds of subsequent delays in sales or other proceedings.
The statutory limitations under Rule 68B of the Income Tax Act are not applicable to recovery proceedings under the RDDB Act, affirming that such sales are valid and within legal parameters.
The limitation period for delivery of possession under Article 134 begins from the confirmation of sale, not the issuance of the sale certificate.
The validity of property transactions can be affected by the vendor's tax issues, leading to potential void status; bona fide purchaser claims necessitate separate civil proceedings for determination....
The limitation for filing an application under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC is sixty days, not thirty, and stay orders do not exclude this period.
The limitation for filing an application under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC is 60 days from the date of sale, and the stay period does not save the limitation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
