9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to auction sale for recovery of arrears of income-tax. Validity of confirmation of sale by Tax Recovery Officer (TRO). Lack of notice before second proclamation for sale. Interpretation of Sch. II rules regarding sale of immovable property. Analysis: The petitioner sought to quash the auction sale of his house for income-tax arrears. Recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for dues of multiple assessment years. The house was attached, and the sale was adjourned due to inadequate bids. The highest bidder's offer was accepted after the petitioner filed an appeal. The Tribunal granted an interim stay for the disputed tax amount, later confirmed. The petitioner challenged the sale through a petition, which was dismissed due to abatement. Subsequent appeals were also dismissed. The petitioner contended that the sale confirmation was invalid due to the Tribunal's stay order and lack of notice before the second proclamation. The rules of Sch. II govern the recovery process, including issuance of notices, attachment, and sale of property. Rule 61 allows setting aside a sale due to non-service of notice or irregularities. Rule 63 mandates confirmation of the sale by the TRO if no application is made or if disallowed. The Tribunal's stay order did not invalidate the sale as it only pertained to the disputed tax amount. The Supreme Court precedent establishes that setting aside a decree after a sale does not affect the sale's validity. The auction sale remained valid despite the Tribunal's decision in the petitioner's favor. Regarding the lack of notice before the second proclamation, Rule 61 requires specific grounds to challenge a sale, including non-service of notice. The petitioner's presence during the sale without raising objections implied waiver. The CPC precedent suggests that no fresh notice is necessary when a sale is adjourned and a new proclamation is issued. The petitioner's failure to raise objections about notice during the sale further weakens the argument. The petitioner's reliance on a Supreme Court ruling related to a different statute was deemed irrelevant in this context. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, citing the petitioner's failure to establish grounds for setting aside the sale. The court found no merit in the arguments raised and ordered the refund of the security amount to the petitioner.
|
