9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to constitutional validity of section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and entitlement to opportunity of hearing for petitioners. Analysis: The petition challenged the order passed by the appropriate authority under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and also contested the constitutional validity of the said section. Reference was made to the apex court judgment in the case of C.B. Gautam v. UOI, where the constitutional validity of section 269UD was upheld, but certain provisions were read down, emphasizing the need for acquisition of property under section 269UD to adhere to principles of natural justice. Submissions: Mr. Mistry argued that petitioners should be granted an opportunity of hearing as per the apex court's ruling in C.B. Gautam's case, suggesting a remand to the competent authority for fresh consideration. Conversely, Mr. Ashokan, representing the Revenue, contended that a remand may not be necessary based on the apex court's judgment, particularly highlighting a specific paragraph regarding completed transactions and public auctions. Consent Order: A consent order was passed by the court, outlining specific actions to be taken by both parties, including restoration of possession, restrictions on property dealings, and provisions for potential discharge of the rule. The terms of the consent order indicated that the acquisition under challenge had not been finalized, with no acceptance of consideration and possession being returned to the petitioner. Judgment: After considering the rival contentions and the consent order, the High Court concluded that the acquisition did not reach finality, rejecting the Revenue's submissions. Referring to the apex court judgment in C.B. Gautam's case, the impugned order under section 269UD(1) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the appropriate authority for fresh consideration in line with the apex court's directions. The petition was disposed of, with the statement submitted by the petitioners being treated as if submitted on that day, and a clear directive was given regarding the consequences of Revenue's failure to pass an order within the statutory period. This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues, submissions made by the parties, the impact of the consent order, and the ultimate judgment of the High Court in remanding the matter for fresh consideration in light of the apex court's ruling.
|
