TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upport of the Writ petition is also silent. The petitioner has woken up only after the recovery action was taken. What is under challenge in this order is only the auction notice dated 27.07.2011. When the primary order has not been set aside or stayed in the manner known to law, the challenge to the consequential recovery action is not maintainable. Therefore, as long as the original order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the pre-revision notices dated 29.08.2002 were served on the petitioner's daughter Meena on 02.09.2002. An enquiry was held and the petitioner's son-in-law Sankaran appeared on 29.11.2002. Thereafter, the assessment orders were passed on 30.09.2003 and served on the petitioner Subbulakshmi on 09.10.2003. Thereafter, the impugned order enforcing the same was issued. This is under challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 27.07.2011. When the primary order has not been set aside or stayed in the manner known to law, the challenge to the consequential recovery action is not maintainable. Therefore, as long as the original order dated 30.09.2003 has not been challenged, there cannot be any challenge to the consequential recovery action. Of course the petitioner will be liable only to the extent of inheritance. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
