2003 (1) TMI 45 - HC - Income Tax

Petitioner, a coffee planter is a partner in a firm along with one B.S. Nagaraj and carrying on business under the style of M. P. Engineering Works. He filed a writ challenging the constitutional validity of section 269UE(l) of the Act and for quashing the order dated June 13, 1991. The same was dismissed as stated - The property was put up for public auction and one Krishna Murthy purchased the property. Consideration amount was paid and property was handed over to Krishna Murthy on March 27, 1992. Under the circumstances, the auction was complete in favour of the bona fide purchaser. Therefore, the appellant-petitioner cannot challenge the same on the ground that no opportunity was given, more particularly when the writ was dismissed. - the question of giving an opportunity does not arise. The appellant has no subsisting right nor can he challenge the same on the ground of not being given opportunity being an intending purchaser at this stage. - we find no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned single judge so as to call for any interference. The writ appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ appeal challenging the constitutional validity of a tax law, stating that the auction process was completed and compensation was paid to the property owner. The court upheld the previous judgment and ruled that the appellant, an intending purchaser, had no right to challenge the auction outcome as the transaction was completed. The writ appeal was dismissed.