Dismissing the petition, the Court held that ; the assessee approbated and reprobated. The assessee referred to the order dated December 1, 2011 passed by the Settlement Commission as the triggering point. However, in the grounds, he conveniently did not refer to the period consumed by his own applications before the Settlement Commission and his own request for postponement or deferment of the recovery proceedings or to hold them in abeyance. These requests were made by the assessee on his own because of the financial problems faced by him. All this was a creation of the assessee himself. The Settlement Commission’s initial order was based on the assessee’s request to make payment of the tax in instalments. That request was accepted, instalments were determined and even the time was stipulated. It was the assessee, who sought modification of this time relief and extension to make payment by instalments. The request was distinct. There was an attachment levied and the assessee apprehended that if the time to make payment expired the auction may follow. Therefore, the request of the assessee was to extend the time to make payment in instalments and if that had been granted, nothing could have been done by the Revenue pursuant to the attachment. If the time was extended and the payment was made, the sale could not have taken place at all. In these circumstances, based on the assessee’s request, no steps were taken. Secondly and more importantly the Settlement Commission’s order itself was not conclusive until the request, was dealt with and disposed of. The payment by instalments was a direction incorporated in the order of the Settlement Commission. It is that main order, which had not attained finality, particularly in the light of the application filed by the assessee. The sale was not barred by limitation. ( BP.2002-03 to 2008-09)