Allowing the petition the Court held that, Tax Recovery Officer could not declare a transaction of transfer as void, if revenue wants to have transaction nullified, it must go to civil court to seek declaration to that effect. However since in instant case notice under rule 2 of Second Schedule was served on defaulter assessee and sale transactions executed by said defaulter with instant petitioner took place thereafter, it would not be open to petitioner to claim benefit of proviso to S. 281(1) of the Act. The orders impugned in these writ petitions are quashed to the extent indicated above. The stand of the respondent in declining to lift the attachment already made is sustained. The order of the respondent declaring the transactions in question as null and void is quashed.
D. S. Senthilvel v. TRO (2018) 405 ITR 202/ 256 Taxman 179 / 166 DTR 278 / 304 CTR 49 (Mad) ( HC)
S. 281 : Certain transfers to be void -Tax Recovery Officer could not declare a transaction of transfer as void, if revenue wants to have transaction nullified, it must go to civil court to seek declaration to that effect. [ S. 222, Second Schedule , R.11 ]