JUDGMENT & ORDER : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. Both the Counsel agree that the petitions can be disposed of at this stage. 2. Admit. 3. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act 1956 having its registered Office at B-3/9, 2nd Floor, Model Town 1, New Delhi. Aggrieved of the demand notice dated 29.09.2009 issued by the Income Tax authorities (respondent No.1) holding the petitioner Company as assessee in default, the petition has been filed before this Court. In order to understand the facts it would be appropriate to quote the order of demand dated 29.09.2009 in verbatim : - "OFFICE OF THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER-2, 22, MOTI DUNGRI, ALWAR No.2550 Date:-29.09.2009 Sh. Ashok Mathur, Dy General Manger (Documentation) Rajsthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. Sir, Subject:- Arrear demand in the case of M/s Panasia Industries Ltd Plot No.F-62-63, RIICO Industrial Area, Behror, Distt. Alwar-regarding. Please refer to your letter No.U(20) 3(-62)/164/94 dated 02.07.2009 and this office letter No.TRO2/ALW/2009-10/04 dated 23.06.2009 on the above subject. In this connection you have been reminded many times by this office that a huge demand of Rs.1, 25, 45, 598 is outstanding against the above named assessee and for this purpose attachment of factory building including plant and machinery of M/s Pan Asia Industries Ltd. were made by way of issue of ITCP-16 on 26.03. 2004 by this office. You have been asked many times to cooperate in the matter so that recovery of tax dues may be made from the assessee. But instead of cooperating with the department you are trying to transfer the property of the above named assessee to M/s Premier Texto Trade Pvt. Ltd. You have been asked vide letter No.TRO-2 ALW/2007-08/45 dated 24.03.2008 that before giving permission to the assessee from your office for transfer of property in this case, No objection certificate should be obtained by this department. But I find that there is no cooperation from your side at all. But I find that there is no cooperation from your side at all. Legal opinion from Standing Counsel of the department regarding limitation u/s 68B of second schedule was also sought, according to which it is clear that the aspect of limitation u/s 68B of second scheduled cannot be ground for releasing and relinquishing the arrears because the open words of 68B goes to show that it is a procedural section and not having overriding effect to the provisions contained in the Act. Apart from the above it is worthwhile to mention that the attachment of the aforesaid property was made on 26.03.2004 and attached property has been sold by you. (Copy of your office letter No.327 dated 22.04.2008 is enclosed) by way of getting payment through one time settlement scheme against your outstanding dues. At that time also you were well aware about the outstanding dues of I.Tax Department against the above assessee but ignoring all these facts you are trying to cooperate the assessee and getting the property of the assessee transferred in the name of M/s Premier Texto Trade Pvt. Ltd. In view of the above facts you are required to explain as to why the Govt. dues of Rs.1, 25, 45, 598/- alongwith interest u/s220(2) of the I.T. Act 1961 should not be recovered from you by invoking the coercive measures of recovery i.e. attachment of you bank Account etc. For this purpose you are required to attend this office on 12.10.2009 at 11.00 AM. Your Faithfully, (H.L. Gupta) Tax Recovery Officer Range-2, Alwar Copy to:- 1. Premier Texto Trade Pvt. Ltd., B-3/9 second floor Model Town-1 Delhi-110009 for information. 2. Tax Recovery Officer 1(2), Room No.535, 5th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 for information. Tax Recovery Officer Ranger-2, Alwar" 4. The submission which the petitioner seeks to advance is on the basis of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act of 1961'). 5. In the other writ petition No.8308/2016 the impugned demand notice dated 09.06.2010 is also quoted in verbatim: - "OFFICE OF THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER-2, 22, MOTI DUNGRI, ALWAR No. ITO/TRO-2/2010-11/2070 Date:09.06.2010 M/S Premier Texo Trade Pvt. Ltd. F-62-63, Ricco Industrial area, Behror. Sir, Subject: Recovery of outstanding demand of Rs.7485523/- for Asstt. Year 91-92 to 94-95 in the case of M/S Pan Asia Industries Pvt. Ltd., Behror- regarding. Sir, Subject: Recovery of outstanding demand of Rs.7485523/- for Asstt. Year 91-92 to 94-95 in the case of M/S Pan Asia Industries Pvt. Ltd., Behror- regarding. Above demand is outstanding against the above company since long. To recover the above demand the immovable property situated at plot No.62-63, Ricco Industrial area, Behror has been attached by this office on 26.03.2004. Now it has been informed that your Company has taken possession over the immovable properties including the above said plot and possession over the immovable properties including the above said plot and running therein business activities. Since the above said immovable properties already stand attached by this Office you are an assessee in default in respect of above outstanding demand of Rs.7485523/- plus interest. Accordingly you are requested to deposit the above demand within 3 days of the receipt of this letter failing which the above said immovable property shall be taken in possession by the Department and coercive measures of recovery including attachment of your Bank account etc. shall also be taken. For this purpose you may attend before the undersigned on 15.06.2010 at 12.30 AM in my office at Shakti vihar colony, Behror (R.A. AGARWAL) Tax Recovery Officer, Range-2 Alwar At present at Behror" 6. Due to the aforesaid notice given to the RIICO authorities and to the petitioner, the lease rights were not transferred in favour of the petitioner-Company. 7. Facts which need to be noted are that the Company purchased lease rights of Industrial plot Nos.F62-64 and G-93-95 plots situated at RIICO Industrial Area, Behror, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan) from M/s. Pan Asia Industries Limited on 17.11.2006 through a registered sale deed. As there was a tax recovery demand, as against Pan Asia the Tax Recovery Officer issued an Order under Section 220(2) of the Act of 1961 as against Pan Asia Industries relating to assessment year 1993-1994 on 16.02.1998 and an order was passed on 23.03.2004 under Section 271 (1) (i) imposing penalty on 27.06.2007 in four cases for a sum of Rs.5, 025/-, 74, 29, 696/-, 50, 877/- & 50, 60, 000/- totaling to Rs. 1,25, 45, 598/- plus interest. The properties of Pan Asia were thus attached as on 31.03.2004. Thus on 17.11.2006 when the sale deed was executed the properties of Pan Asia were under attachment with Income Tax Authorities. 1,25, 45, 598/- plus interest. The properties of Pan Asia were thus attached as on 31.03.2004. Thus on 17.11.2006 when the sale deed was executed the properties of Pan Asia were under attachment with Income Tax Authorities. In view thereof, the Income Tax Authorities issued aforesaid orders for recovering the amount from the petitioner. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of the Act of 1961 provided procedure for recovery of tax as laid down in Schedule Second after the Certificate is issued in terms of Section 222 of the Income Tax Act. As per the said Schedule, the Tax Recovery Officer is supposed to serve upon the defaulters the notice requiring a defaulter to pay the amount. As per Rule 16 where a notice has been served on defaulter under Rule 2 and where an attachment has already been made under this Schedule, any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein and any payment to the defaulter of any debt, dividend or other moneys contrary to such attachment, shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment. 9. However, it is his submission that as per Rule 68B to Schedule Second the sale of immovable property shall be made only within three years from the end of financial year and as per Rule 68B (4) 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 time of the limitation specified under this rule. Thus, it is his submission that as the immovable property which was purchased by the petitioner-Company from Pan Asia (the defaulting Company) was made on 17.11.2006 and the sale of the immovable property by the respondent i.e. the Tax Recovery Officer was not made as prescribed under 68B within three years from the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to the demand of tax for the recovery of which the immovable property has been attached; the attachment order would be deemed to have been vacated on the expiry of three years in other words after the expiry of three years i.e. from 31.03.2004 upto 31.3.2007, the attachment stood vacated on 31.03.2007 and the sale deed executed in favour of petitioner would remain intact and cannot be termed as void after 31.03.2007. 10. Learned Counsel also points out that the Pan Asia and the Tax Recovery Officer entered into a one time settlement. He submits that so far as RIICO is concerned, they were not justified in withholding the transfer of lease rights pertaining to plot Nos.F-62-64 and G-93-95 plots situated at RIICO Industrial Area, Behror, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan) in favour of the petitioner-Compnay on account of the attachment notice having become barred by limitation by virtue of the afore noted submission and has therefore prayed that the RIICO be directed to transfer lease rights pertaining to the said plots. Further, it is submitted that the loan account of Pan Asia with the RIICO stood already satisfied and the RIICO therefore had no authority to withhold the transfer of lease rights of the said plots in the name of the petitioner Company. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon documents relating to Pan Asia filed by way of an application. The petitioner has also placed on record the sale deed which was executed between the petitioner and the Director, Pan Asia industries (defaulting Company). 11. Learned Counsel relies on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.V. Gopala Rao & Ors, 2017 396 ITR 694 (SC) to assert that the provisions contained under Rule 68B of the Second Schedule have statutory force as held by the Apex Court. He further relies on three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in case of M. Marathachalam Pillai Vs. S.V. Gopala Rao & Ors, 2017 396 ITR 694 (SC) to assert that the provisions contained under Rule 68B of the Second Schedule have statutory force as held by the Apex Court. He further relies on three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in case of M. Marathachalam Pillai Vs. Padmavathi Ammal & Ors, (1971) 3 SCC 878 and Balkrishan Gupta & Ors. Vs. Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. & Anr, (1985) 2 SCC 167 . in support of his contention. He also refer to judgments passed by various High Courts following the judgment passed by the Supreme Court as noted above as in Official Receiver, Muzaffarnagar, Vs. Chandra Shekhar & Ors, (1977) AIR(Allahabad) 77 & Viyawati Vs. Lala Ram (D) by L.Rs. & Anr, (2008) 1 AWC 276 and Noorudin Vs.Tax Recover Officer, (2001) 251 ITR 357. 12. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that Rule 68B does not apply to the subsequent purchaser who with ulterior motives purchased the property in question during the subsistence of attachment. It is further submitted in the reply that a Court receiver had already been appointed by the Bombay High Court relating to the properties of the defaulting Company and in this regard information was sent to RIICO on 13.03.2008 and the RIICO had informed to the Income Tax Authorities that the Corporation had already released its charge over the fixed assets of the Company after the one time settlement arrived at between the defaulting Company and the RIICO. The Income Tax Officer was also informed by the RIICO about the one time settlement between the defaulting Company of the Corporation. The RIICO had also been been asked not to grant and recognize any sale of the property or transfer of title unless No Objection is received from the Office. Learned Counsel submits that in terms of Section 281 of the Act of 1961 any transfer of property where there is any pendency of any proceedings under this act, would be void as against any claim in respect of any tax or any other sum applied by the assesee. Learned Counsel submits that in terms of Section 281 of the Act of 1961 any transfer of property where there is any pendency of any proceedings under this act, would be void as against any claim in respect of any tax or any other sum applied by the assesee. Further it is submitted that as per Rule 68(B) (i) the limitation of three years would be only from the date the demand of any tax has become conclusive under the provisions of Section 245(I) or as the case may be final in terms of provisions of Chapter 40 and, therefore, the same would not apply. Learned Counsel further submits that in terms of Section 64 of the CPC a private transfer by judgment debtor of the property contrary to the claims of the decree holder is void and submits that the judgment cited by the Counsel for the petitioner are actually in favour of the revenue and have been wrongfully interpreted. 13. Having heard learned Counsel at length, before dealing with the facts of the case, it would be appropriate to quote certain provisions of the Act of 1961 and also relevant judgments cited at bar : - Provisions of the Income Tax, 1961 : - "281. (1) Where, during the pendency of any proceeding under this Act or after the completion thereof, but before the service of notice under rule 2 of the Second Schedule, any assessee creates a charge on, or parts with the possession (by way of sale, mortgage, gift, exchange or any other mode of transfer whatsoever) of, any of his assets in favour of any other person, such charge or transfer shall be void as against any claim in respect of any tax or any other sum payable by the assessee as a result of the completion of the said proceeding or otherwise : Provided that such charge or transfer shall not be void if it is made (i) for adequate consideration and without notice of the pendency of such proceeding or, as the case may be, without notice of such tax or other sum payable by the assessee ; or (ii) with the previous permission of the 63[Assessing] Officer. (2) This section applies to cases where the amount of tax or other sum payable or likely to be payable exceeds five thousand rupees and the assets charged or transferred exceed ten thousand rupees in value. Explanation. In this section, "assets" means land, building, machinery, plant, shares, securities and fixed deposits in banks, to the extent to which any of the assets aforesaid does not form part of the stock-in-trade of the business of the assessee.]" "222. [(1) When an assessee is in default or is deemed to be in default in making a payment of tax, the Tax Recovery Officer may draw up under his signature a statement in the prescribed form specifying the amount of arrears due from the assessee (such statement being hereafter in this Chapter and in the Second Schedule referred to as "certificate") and shall proceed to recover from such assessee the amount specified in the certificate by one or more of the modes mentioned below, in accordance with the rules laid down in the Second Schedule ] (a) attachment and sale of the assessee's movable property ; (b) attachment and sale of the assessee's immovable property ; (c) arrest of the assessee and his detention in prison; (d) appointing a receiver for the management of the assessee's movable and immovable properties. [Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-section, the assessee's movable or immovable property shall include any property which has been transferred, directly or indirectly on or after the 1st day of June, 1973, by the assessee to his spouse or minor child or son's wife or son's minor child, otherwise than for adequate consideration, and which is held by, or stands in the name of, any of the persons aforesaid; and so far as the movable or immovable property so transferred to his minor child or his son's minor child is concerned, it shall, even after the date of attainment of majority by such minor child or son's minor child, as the case may be, continue to be included in the assessee's movable or immovable property for recovering any arrears due from the assessee in respect of any period prior to such date.] [(2) The Tax Recovery Officer may take action under sub-section (1), notwithstanding that proceedings (12 of 20) [CW-8308/2010] for recovery of the arrears by any other mode have been taken.] "Schedule Second Rule 2 2. "[When a certificate has been drawn up by the Tax Recovery Officer] for the recovery of arrears under this Schedule, the Tax Recovery Officer shall cause to be served upon the defaulter a notice requiring the defaulter to pay the amount specified in the certificate within fifteen days from the date of service of the notice and intimating that in default steps would be taken to realise the amount under this Schedule." "Rule 16. (1) Where a notice has been served on a defaulter under rule 2, the defaulter or his representative in interest shall not be competent to mortgage, charge, lease or otherwise deal with any property90 belonging to him except with the permission of the Tax Recovery Officer, nor shall any civil court issue any process against such property in execution of a decree for the payment of money. (2) Where an attachment has been made under this Schedule, any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein and any payment to the defaulter of any debt, dividend or other moneys contrary to such attachment, shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment." "Rule 48. Attachment of the immovable property of the defaulter shall be made by an order prohibiting the defaulter from transferring or charging the property in any way and prohibiting all persons from taking any benefit under such transfer or charge." "68B. (1) No sale of immovable property shall be made under this Part after the expiry of three years18 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-I or, as the case may be, final in terms of the provisions of Chapter x x: Provided that where the immovable property is required to be re-sold due to the amount of highest bid being less than the reserve price or under the circumstances mentioned in rule 57 or rule 58 or where the sale is set aside under rule 61, the aforesaid period of limitation for the sale of the immovable property shall stand extended by one year. (2) In computing the period of limitation under sub-rule (1), the period (i) during which the levy of the aforesaid tax, interest, fine, penalty or any other sum is stayed by an order or injunction of any court; or (ii) during which the proceedings of attachment or sale of the immovable property are stayed by an order or injunction of any court; or (iii) commencing from the date of the presentation of any appeal against the order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer under this Schedule and ending on the day the appeal is decided, shall be excluded : Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation for the sale of the immovable property is less than 180 days, such remaining period shall be extended to 180 days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. (3) -------------- (4) 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. "70. Where immovable property is attached, the Tax Recovery Officer may, instead of directing a sale of the property, appoint a person as receiver to manage such property. Powers of receiver." "71. (1) Where any business or other property is attached and taken under management under the foregoing rules, the receiver shall, subject to the control of the Tax Recovery Officer, have such powers as may be necessary for the proper management of the property and the realisation of the profits, or rents and profits, thereof. (2) The profits, or rents and profits, of such business or other property, shall, after defraying the expenses of management, be adjusted towards discharge of the arrears, and the balance, if any, shall be paid to the defaulter." Somewhat similar facts were existing in the case of M. Marathachalam Pillai cited by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therein, a money decree against a suit and attachment was obtained by the appellant Pillai as against one Sait who was a owner of the house at Ootacamand. The house pertaining to Sait was attached in execution of the decree on October 9, 1956. The house was put up for sale and purchased by him with the leave o the Court on 7.02.1958. The house pertaining to Sait was attached in execution of the decree on October 9, 1956. The house was put up for sale and purchased by him with the leave o the Court on 7.02.1958. However, possession was obstructed by the respondent Padmavathi claiming to have purchased it from Sait on 9.10.1956. In appeal the High Court of Madras held that the attachment was not made according to law and reversed the decree passed in faovur of Pillai. Section 64 of the CPC was examined by the Apex Court and it was held as under : - "5. The High Court was impressed by the testimony of R.F. Stoney who is a retired Engineer and his driver L. Joseph. It is true that there is on the record the report of the Amin which purports to bear the signatures of as many as 12 persons in acknowledgment of attachment being effected by the proclamation by beat of drum. But none of those witnesses has been examined. We have been taken through the evidence of R.F. Stoney and L. Joseph and of the Amin and Vishwanathan, son of Pillai. On a consideration of the evidence, we do not see any reason to disagree with the High Court that no attachment was levied as required by law. Relying upon Section 64, Code of Civil Procedure the private transfer of property in favour of Padmavathi cannot be deemed to be void as against the claims enforceable under the attachment of the property by Pillai. 6. But Mr Chagla appearing on behalf of Pillai raised an alternative contention. He said that at the time of sale there was another outstanding attachment and the sale in favour of Padmavathi being contrary to such attachment was, in any event, void. It appears that on January 17, 1956, Pillai had in execution of a decree obtained in Suit No. 55 of 1953, attached the property, but that attachment was removed on March 23, 1957, on satisfaction of the decree. By Section 64, Code of Civil Procedure, the attachment is only void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment, and it is not void generally. Since the attachment effected on January 17, 1956 was removed, any private alienation contrary to such attachment cannot be regarded as void for there are no claims enforceable under the attachment, dated January 17, 1956." 11. Since the attachment effected on January 17, 1956 was removed, any private alienation contrary to such attachment cannot be regarded as void for there are no claims enforceable under the attachment, dated January 17, 1956." 11. In case of Balkrishan Gupta cited the Apex Court held as under : - "30.---------------What is forbidden under section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a private transfer by the judgment-debtor of the property attached contrary to the attachment, that is, contrary to the claims of the decree holder under the decree for realisation of which the attachment is effected. A private transfer under section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not absolutely void, that is, void as against all the world but void only as against the claims enforceable under the attachment. Until the property is actually sold, the judgment-debtor retains title in the property attached. Under Rule 76 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the shares in a Corporation which reattached may sold through a broker. In the alternative such shares may be sold in public auction under Rule 77 thereof. On such sale' either under Rule 76 or under Rule 77, the purchaser acquires title. Until such sale is effected, all other rights of the judgment-debtor remain unaffected even if the shares may have been seized by the officer of the court under Rule 43 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purpose of effecting the attachment, or through a Receiver or though an order in terms of Rule 46 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure may have been served on the judgment-debtor or on the company concerned." 14. Learned Counsel for the respondent has also cited one judgment reported in Macson Marbles Private Limited Vs. Union of India, (2008) 15 SCC 481 the question arose relating to whether the auction purchaser whose bid has been accepted would also take on the liability of the Company who owned the suit plot against whom there is a demand of Central Excise. The Apex Court held as under : "9. The argument advanced by the appellant that sale having taken place under the State Act free of encumbrances and the transferor's rights or liabilities cannot be that of transferee does not hold good. The Apex Court held as under : "9. The argument advanced by the appellant that sale having taken place under the State Act free of encumbrances and the transferor's rights or liabilities cannot be that of transferee does not hold good. Section 29(2) of the State Act makes it clear that the property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Financial Corporation can be brought to sale and such a sale if resulted in transfer of property shall vest in the successor all rights in the property transferred as if the transfer has been made by the owner of the property. When sale made by the corporation is deemed to be a sale made by the owner of the property, necessarily Rule 230(2) of the Central Excise Rules would be attracted. 10. We are not impressed with the argument that the State Act is a special enactment and the same would prevail over the Central Excise Act. Each of them is a special enactment and unless in the operation of the same any conflict arises this aspect need not be examined. In this case no such conflict arises between the corporation and the Excise Department. Hence it is unnecessary to examine this aspect of the matter." 15. A look at the aforenoted provisions show that under Section 68-B if the sale is not executed within a period of three years after the attachment, the same shall be deemed to have been vacated. However, Rule 48 mentions attachment of immovable property of a defaulter prohibiting the defaulter from transferring or charging the property in any way and prohibiting all persons from taking all benefits under such transfer or charge fees. Thus, if the facts of the present case are taken into consideration, it is apparent that Section 281 of the Act of 1961 would not come into operation to declare the sale and transfer as void since the provision is only with reference to the pendency of the proceedings before the service of notice under Rule 2 of Second Schedule. 16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon Rule 16(2) has submitted that since it was a private transfer or delivery of a property attached, the same could be void as against of claimant enforceable under the attachment. 16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon Rule 16(2) has submitted that since it was a private transfer or delivery of a property attached, the same could be void as against of claimant enforceable under the attachment. However, as the attachment itself cannot be said to be enforceable after a lapse of three years as provided under 68(B) (4), the notices issued to the petitioner by the respondents were unjustified. 17. I do not agree with the said submission as there is a basic fault in it to the extent that the Rule 16(2) shall be examined on the day when the sale was executed i.e. on 17.11.2006. The attachment was enforceable on that day when the sale was executed between the Company i.e. petitioner and the defaulting company and would be void. The clams of the department being enforceable against the defaulting company the petitioner's attempt to take umbrage of Rule 16(2) is wholly unfounded. On a conjoint reading of Rule 16(1) and 16(2), it is apparent that while Rule 16(1) puts an embargo on the defaulter or his representative in interest to mortgage, charge, lease or otherwise deal with any property belonging to him except with the permission of the Tax Recovery Officer. Rule 16(2) disallows any private transfer or delivery of property attached or of creating any interest therein for any payments to the defaulter of any debt, dividend and other monies contrary to such attachment when all such dealings have been treated as void. Petitioner-Company could not have even entered in settlement with the Tax Recovery Officer and such one time settlement as alleged by the petitioner would be treated as void. The judgment passed by the Apex Court in M.Marathachalam Pillai was essentially relating to a civil suit where there was an attachment of the house in execution of the decree. In Balkrishan Gupta, the Apex Court again dealt with Section 64 of CPC to hold that the private transfer is not absolutely void as against all the word but void only as against a claim enforceable under the attachment. Although the same words have been used in Rule 16(2), the facts show that on the day when the sale was executed the same was void against all claims enforceable under the attachment. Although the same words have been used in Rule 16(2), the facts show that on the day when the sale was executed the same was void against all claims enforceable under the attachment. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that after the expiry of three years, the sale deed would remain alive and intact is wholly misconceived. The word 'void' means not valid or legally binding once a sale deed is void, it is rendered useless. In English language it means a complete empty space once sale deed is void on the day when it was executed i.e.17.11.2006. Merely on account of the period of attachment has lapsed and the attachment having been vacated, it cannot be revived and such claims of the department persist the petitioner attempted to take benefit of Rule 68(3) (4) is not made out. 18. There is other aspect which also needs to be noted. Rule 68(B) (iv) comes into operation where the sale of immovable property is not made in terms of Section 68(b) (1). However, it is seen that in all cases the Tax Recovery Officers may not have proceeded under 168(b) and has an option to appoint a person as Receiver instead of directing of sale of property in terms of Rule 70 and 71. Admittedly the Receiver has already been appointed on the properties of the defaulting Company which includes the property situated at Alwar thus, there was no occasion for the Tax Recovery Officer to proceed with the sale in terms of 68(b) and the argument of the petitioner relating to the same not being void on account of vacation of the attachment is not made out and in such circumstances, the sale executed in favour of the petitioner has to be treated as void. 19. Even as per Section 222 there is an option for either to proceed with the charge sheet and sale by the Tax Recovery Officer or to appoint a Receiver on the property. However, in view of the fact that Receiver had already been appointed by the Bombay High Court, it is to be presumed that the attachment and sale could not be proceeded further and receiver as appointed by the High Court, would be deemed to do the work in terms of Rule 70 and 71 of the Income Tax, 1961. 20. However, in view of the fact that Receiver had already been appointed by the Bombay High Court, it is to be presumed that the attachment and sale could not be proceeded further and receiver as appointed by the High Court, would be deemed to do the work in terms of Rule 70 and 71 of the Income Tax, 1961. 20. In view of the law as laid down by Apex Court in Macson Marbles Private Limited cited, the sale executed in favour of the petitioner results in the petitioner liable to pay the dues as against the defaulting company and, therefore, the demand raised by the department is wholly justified. Income Tax Act provides a complete code in itself and protect the revenue from misadventures which may be taken up by a defaulting person like the Company in the present case. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs.50, 000/-.