On a writ petition challenging the order of attachment the Court held that, the guarantor had filed a return of income on July 31, 2009. His case was selected for scrutiny. Notices under section 143(2) were issued in September 2010 and February 2011. A notice under section 142(1) was issued on February 23, 2011. The order of assessment was passed only on December 27, 2011 under section 143(3). Consequently, the demand notice under section 156 was issued only on December 27, 2011, giving the managing partner of the guarantor thirty days’ time. Even if the period of thirty days was counted from the date of the notice, i. e., December 27, 2011, the notice period would expire on January 26, 2012. Therefore, the managing partner of the guarantor became an assessee-in-default in terms of section 220(4) only on January 26, 2012. The tax recovery certificate was issued on January 9, 2014. The order of attachment was issued on March 14, 2018. But the mortgage was created by the guarantor in favour of the bank on July 11, 2011, much before the order of assessment was passed under section 143(3) on December 27, 2011. Hence the creation of the mortgage could not be said to have automatically become void in terms of section 281(1) merely because of the pendency of the proceedings under sections 143 and 142. It required something more to be done, but it was not done in this case. As a matter of fact even an investigation under rule 11 was not carried out. Therefore, the order of attachment was illegal. On the date on which the order of attachment was passed, the property had already been sold by the bank, in exercise of the power conferred upon the bank under the 2002 Act. The order of attachment was set aside. The Sub-Registrar was to proceed to register the sale certificate issued by the bank upon compliance with the necessary formalities. (AY. 2009-10)