9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Writ petition filed under art. 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari and mandamus. - Compulsory registration of a settlement deed executed by the third respondent. - Requirement of an I.T. Clearance Certificate under s. 230A of the I.T. Act, 1961 for registration. - Refusal by the fourth respondent ITO to accept the application for the I.T. Clearance Certificate. - Dispute over the application of s. 230A to involuntary transfers. - Legal standing of the petitioner to apply for the certificate on behalf of the third respondent. - Jurisdiction of the I.T. Department to issue the certificate to a third party. Detailed Analysis: The petitioner, Mrs. Helen Jayaraj, filed two writ petitions seeking a writ of certiorari and mandamus. The dispute arose from the compulsory registration of a settlement deed executed by the third respondent, valued at over Rs. 50,000. The first respondent, a Registering Officer, insisted on an I.T. Clearance Certificate under s. 230A of the I.T. Act, 1961 for registration. The petitioner applied for the certificate, but the fourth respondent ITO refused to accept the application, claiming only the third respondent could apply. The crux of the issue was whether s. 230A applied to involuntary transfers. The petitioner argued against the requirement of the certificate based on this premise. However, the court found that the Registering Officer was justified in requesting the certificate due to the value of the properties involved. The petitioner's allegation of the fourth respondent's refusal to accept her application was not specifically denied by respondents, leading to it being deemed admitted. Respondents contended that the petitioner lacked standing to apply for the certificate on behalf of the third respondent. The I.T. Department cited s. 230A(1) and (2) to support their stance. However, the court found that the Department's refusal to issue the certificate based on objections from the third respondent and the petitioner's sister was unjustified. The court held that in the absence of tax arrears from the third respondent, the certificate should have been issued to the petitioner. In conclusion, the court dismissed one writ petition and allowed the other, directing the Registering Officer to register the document without requiring the I.T. Clearance Certificate. The court awarded costs to the petitioner, holding that the I.T. Department wrongly declined to issue the certificate and that the petitioner had legal standing to seek it on behalf of the third respondent.
|
