Court held that once recovery proceedings are initiated, they would be governed by the provisions of Schedule II to the Act. Rule 73 is a part of Part V of Schedule II. Part V is with respect to arrest and detention of the defaulter. On the other hand, rule 83 is within Part VI of Schedule II. Part VI is miscellaneous. Once rule 83 clarifies that the Tax Recovery Officer or any other officer, acting under the provisions of Schedule II, shall have the powers of a civil court while trying a suit, it necessarily implies that by virtue of summons under rule 83 of the Second Schedule, the Tax Recovery Officer can compel the personal attendance of the assessee or defaulter. Rule 83 of the Second Schedule to the Act talks about enforcing the attendance of the witnesses and not the assessee himself. When the assessee appears before the Tax Recovery Officer in response to such summons issued to him under rule 83, he could be said to be a witness. The mere absence of the word “assessee” or “defaulter” would not make any difference. It is always open for the Tax Recovery Officer to seek necessary information from the assessee himself and any other witness or witnesses, if any. For effective and expeditious disposal of the recovery proceedings, it is always permissible for the Tax Recovery Officer to call for necessary and relevant information and conduct an inquiry by securing and enforcing the personal attendance of the assessee or defaulter. Court also held that ,it is a settled position of law that even if some action of a quasi-judicial authority is found to be not in accordance with law or without jurisdiction, still the High Court may decline to grant any relief in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India . On facts the assessee had not co-operated in the assessment proceedings. Hence even if the summons under rule 83 were illegal, the conduct of the petitioner disentitled him to any relief. ( AY 2014-15)