The petitioner purchased the property and in possession and enjoyment of the properties since 2008.The order of attachment was received on July 13, 2009. The petitioner raised the objections against the notice, however there was no response from the Revenue. The petitioner filed the writ petition to quash the proceedings. Court held that the  Assessment proceedings are initiated and finalised under the powers granted to an Assessing Officer defined in terms of section 2(25) whereas recovery in terms of the Second Schedule is by a Tax Recovery Officer, as defined in section 2(44) of the Act. There is thus a clear and categorical distinction between assessment and recovery under the Act. The definitions, nomenclature, titles, roles and powers of the two officers are separate and distinct. An Income-tax Officer is defined under section 2(25) and his appointment is in terms of section 117. With the issuance of a rule 2 notice, the procedure for recovery under the Second Schedule stands started. Once a certificate is drawn up under section 222, an assessee is stated to be ”in default” or is deemed to be in default in making a payment of tax. Such a statement is to be drawn in terms of rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Act. Rule 4 talks about modes of recovery that are available to a Tax Recovery Officer to proceed to realise the amount in question, by (a) attachment and sale of the movable property, (ii) attachment and sale of the defaulter’s immovable property, (c) by arrest and detention, and (d) by appointing a receiver for the management of his properties. A literal reading of rule 2 would result in a situation where any property of a defaulting assessee would fall and continue to be under a cloud, for all time, till such time the defaulter settles the arrears. However rule 68B of the Second Schedule stipulates a time limit for sale of the attached property. It provides that no sale of immovable property shall be made under this Part after the expiry of seven years from the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to the demand for any tax, interest, fine, penalty or any other sum, for the recovery of which the immovable property has been attached. The scheme of recovery under the Second Schedule is time bound, sacrosanct and must be enforced strictly, both qua the assessee as well as the Department. Allowing the petition the Court held that   the scheme of rule 68B had long since expired and the Department had, admittedly not taken any action within the time provided. In the light of the statutory embargo under rule 68B, the attachment of the properties in question, 25 years from the lapse of the assessment years in question, was wholly impermissible in law. The attachments made after purchase of the properties by the petitioners for valuable consideration could not be sustained. (AY.1995-96 to 1998-99)