Assessee was owner of a piece of land which was furnished as security by his son-in-law for availing loan from respondent bank. Since defaults were made in repayment of loan, the respondent bank preferred an application before Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) which allowed the said application vide order dated 27-02-2004 and issued a Recovery Certificate dated 06-05-2004 authorizing Recovery Officer to recover the amounts due. Property was sold by Recovery Officer on 27-11-2007. Assessee filed a writ petition contending that as per rule 68B of the Second Schedule, the property can only be sold within 3 years and since in his case property was sold after a lapse of 3 years 7 months from the end of the financial year in which order giving rise to the demand for recovery was passed, the sale was vitiated and liable to be set aside. The petition was dismissed by the single judge. On further appeal, High Court held that period of 3 years stipulated in rule 68B is to commence from end of the financial year in which order becomes conclusive and final. The court observed that even though the order of the DRT was passed on 27-02-2004, the same became final only when period of 45 days stipulated for filing an appeal had lapsed on 13-04-2004. Therefore, High held that 3 year period stipulated by rule 68B expired only on 31-03-2008 and thus, the sale was within time stipulated by statutory provisions. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed by High Court .
K. Kutaguptan v. Canara Bank (2018) 253 Taxman 88/166 DTR 65 / 305 CTR 431(Ker) ( HC)
S. 222 Collection and recovery – Certificate to Tax Recovery Officer -Time limit for sale of attached immovable property – the order of the DRT becomes final only after expiry of period prescribed for filing appeal and therefore 3 year period as stipulated by rule 68B for sale of attached property should be determined from such date when the order of DRT becomes final- Sale was held to be not time barred .