2000 (3) TMI 49

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... order be quashed. In a petition moved before the learned single judge, the petitioners claimed that they have purchased the property from respondent No. 6. That property was attached for recovery of taxes. The petitioners-appellants have challenged the attachment order, as it was absolutely void and contrary to the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The learned single judge found that there .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rned counsel appearing for the petitioners-appellants as to whether once the alternative remedy has been availed of, simultaneously the proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution of India can continue. Learned counsel submitted that normally both the remedies cannot be availed of, but when the interim order was passed, none objected and direction was given to the Tax Recovery Officer to cons .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, does not survive. When the matter was pending since long there was a direction for considering the objection of the petitioners under rule 11 of the Second Schedule and an order has also been passed by the Tax Recovery Officer and communicated to the petitioners-appellants by a covering letter dated July 21, 1997. It .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X