9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Challenge to order under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without show-cause notice, interpretation of reasonable opportunity requirement, computation of time period under section 269UD(1), violation of proviso to section 269UD, application date determination, consideration of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
Analysis: The petitioner challenges an order dated December 29, 1989, under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which directed the property's vesting in the Central Government without a show-cause notice. The Supreme Court's decision in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India establishes the necessity of providing a reasonable opportunity to the concerned parties before making a compulsory purchase order under section 269UD. The judgment emphasizes the importance of giving intending purchasers and sellers a chance to show cause against such orders to prevent injustice. The High Court directs that the statement in Form No. 37-I should be treated as submitted on the judgment's date and clarifies the computation of the two-month period under section 269UD(1) from the end of the month when the relevant statement is received. The impugned order is found to violate the proviso to section 269UD due to lack of a specific date on the application. Although the application does not mention a submission date, the petitioner's counsel argues based on the application's contents that it was made between July 4, 1989, and September 20, 1989, as Rs. 3 lakhs were payable before June 30, 1989. However, the court notes the absence of a specified date in the petition and defers consideration of this issue pending factual determination. The petitioner's counsel also raises a potential argument under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act regarding possession in part performance of an agreement, which is left open for future examination based on facts and evidence. In light of the Supreme Court's decision and the identified violations, the High Court quashes the impugned order under section 269UD(1) and remits the matter to the appropriate authority for reconsideration while keeping all questions open for further review. The petition succeeds, and no costs are awarded in the circumstances.
|
