JUDGMENT : In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order of attachment effected by the second respondent in respect of an apartment situate in Mumbai and seeks a declaration that Ext.P5 order of attachment stood vacated on the expiry of the period of limitation stipulated in rule 68B(1) of the II Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P(C)No. 14341 of 2011 for an order directing the respondents to lift the attachment of the apartment referred to above. At that stage a request made by the petitioner in that regard was pending before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kottayam. Taking note of that fact his Court disposed of the said writ petition by Ext.P12 judgment delivered on 6.6.2011 with a direction to the first respondent to consider that representation in the light of the statutory provisions and to take a decision thereon after affording the petitioner/petitioner's representative an opportunity of being heard. The first respondent thereafter considered the said representation and passed Ext.P16 order dated 1.8.2011 wherein overruling the contention raised by the petitioner the first respondent rejected the petitioner's request to lift the attachment. 3. I heard Sri.N.James Koshy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Joy Thattil Ittoop, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. It is not in dispute that by virtue of section 8G of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 the provisions of the II Schedule to the Income Tax Act, in force from time to time, apply in the matter of recovery of amounts due from employers to the employees provident fund. It was in terms of the said provisions that Ext.P5 order of attachment was issued on 27.8.2006. Rule 68B(1) of the II Schedule of the Income Tax Act stipulates that no sale of immovable property shall be made after the expiry of three years from the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to a demand of any tax, interest, fine, penalty or any other sum, for the recovery of which the immovable property has been attached, has become conclusive under the provisions of section 245-1 or as the case may be, final in terms of the provisions of Chapter II. Interpreting the said provision, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has in S.V.Gopala Rao and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2004) 270 ITR 433 (AP) held that a sale of the attached property beyond the period of three years from the date of attachment in terms of rule 68B(1) is invalid. The same view was taken by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in M.U.Joshi v. The Tax Recovery Officer. (2005) 199 CTR Bombay 249. In such circumstances I am prima facie satisfied that pursuant to Ext.P5 order of attachment, which was effected on 17.8.2006, the immovable property attached therein cannot now be sold. Ext.P5 order of attachment was passed on 17.8.2006.The order of attachment was effected to recover the amounts due from the petitioner for the period 1992 to 2004. If the period of three years is reckoned from 17.8.2006, even then pursuant to Ext.P5 order of attachment the property attached therein cannot now be sold. Sub-rule (4) of rule 68B stipulates that where the sale of immovable property is not made in accordance with the provisions of sub rule (1), the attachment order in relation to the said property shall be deemed to have been vacated on the expiry of the period of limitation specified under that rule. Necessarily therefore, it has to be held that pursuant to Ext.P5 order of attachment the property attached thereunder cannot now be sold except after effecting a fresh order of attachment. I accordingly allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P16 and declare that Ext.P5 order of attachment stands vacated by efflux of time in accordance with the stipulations contained in rule 68B of the II Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. Needless to say it will be open to the respondents to take fresh steps to recover the amounts due from the petitioner.