The Appellant filed the Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay seeking a restraint order against the Tax Recovery Officer for enforcing the attachment made under the Income Tax Act, 1961 . for recovery of the dues. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the High court, aggrieved by which the Appeal has been filed. A recovery certificate in terms of the order passed by the DRT was issued and recovery proceedings were initiated against BPIL. The Recovery Officer, DRT III  attached the property on 29.11.2002. A public auction was held on 28.09.2004. The DRT was informed that there were no bidders except the Appellant. The offer made by the Appellant to purchase the property for an amount of Rs.23,00,000/- was accepted. On 14.01.2005, a certificate of sale was issued in favour of the Appellant. The possession of the disputed property was handed over to the Appellant on 25.01.2005.. The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation  informed that it received a letter dated 23.03.2006 from the Tax Recovery Officer stating that the property in dispute was attached by Respondent No.4 on 17.06.2003. The Appellant requested the Regional Officer, MIDC by a letter dated 10.04.2006 to transfer the property in dispute in its favour in light of the Sale Certificate issued by DRT on 25.01.2005. As the MIDC [failed to transfer the plot in the name of the Appellant, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court seeking a direction for issuance of ‘No Objection’ in respect of the plot and to restrain Respondent from enforcing the attachment of the said plot, which was performed on 11.02.2003. The question posed before the High Court is whether the Appellant who bona fide purchased the property in auction sale as per the order of the DRT is entitled to have the property transferred in its name in spite of the attachment of the said property by the Income Tax Department. Relying upon Rule 16 of Schedule II to the Act, the High Court came to the conclusion that there can be no transfer of a property which is the subject matter of a notice. The High Court was also of the view that after an order of attachment is made under Rule 16(2), no transfer or delivery of the property or any interest in the property can be made, contrary to such attachment. The High Court held that notice under Rule 2 of Schedule II to the Act was issued  on 11.02.2003, and the property in dispute was attached under Rule 48 on 17.06.2003, whereas the sale in favour of the Appellant took place on 09.12.2004 and the sale certificate was issued on 14.01.2005. Therefore, the transfer of the property made subsequent to the issuance of the notice under Rule 2 and the attachment under Rule 48, is void. The submission made on behalf of the Appellant that the sale in favour of the Appellant was at the behest of the DRT and not the defaulter i.e., BPIL was not accepted by the High Court. In view of the above findings, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. Apex Court held that the High Court failed to take into account the fact that the sale of the property was pursuant to the order passed by the DRT with regard to the property over which a charge was already  created prior to the issuance of notice on 11.02.2003. As the charge over the property was created much prior to the issuance of notice under Rule 2 of Schedule II to the Act by Respondent   the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the Appeal is allowed. The MIDC is directed to issue a ‘No Objection” certificate to the Appellant and the  tax recovery officer  is restrained from enforcing the attachment order dated 17.06.2003.( CA No. 1919 of  2010, dt. 06.03.2020)