9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (6) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al was to have been preferred against the said order, then under the provisions of s. 269G, the appeal should have been preferred within forty-five days from 29th March, 1988 or within thirty days from 2nd April, 1988. With reference to either of those dates, an appeal filed after the relevant date in May, 1988 with reference to the aforesaid order would have been out of time. The matters rested there for sometime. There was no appeal and on 16th May, 1988, the appellant wrote a letter to the IAC, Acquisition Range-I, who was the competent authority, (A copy of the letter is market an Annexure-A hereto). In the letter, he has stated that he had not preferred any appeal against the order of the Competent Authority and, therefore, the order h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... April, 1989 written by the CIT, Tamil Nadu III can be considered to be an order in continuation of the order passed by the Competent Authority, namely, the IAC, Acquisition Range I on 29th March, 1988. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of 29th March, 1988 clearly mentioned that the aforesaid order of acquisition was passed after obtaining the approval of the CIT, Tamil Nadu, III. This being so, according to him, the letter of 12th April, 1989 of the authority who gave the approval to the passing of the order of acquisition should be construed to be an order in continuation of the earlier order of acquisition. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal should be taken to be in time and we should go into the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leteness would merit mention is that Chapter XX-A relating to acquisition of immovable property ceased to operate in respect of transfer of immovable property made after 30th Sept., 1986. The question of our going into the issue as to whether the transfer took place before this date or after this date will arise only if we go into the appeal on merits. The other component which went to aggregate Rs. 25,41,000 is the value of machinery which was the subject of a memorandum of transfer of business also dt. 11th Aug., 1986 (Annexure-G), aggregating to Rs. 19,52,690 and the value of goodwill covered by the aforesaid agreement aggregating to Rs. 50,000. According to the Competent Authority, in the order under s. 269F(6) dt. 29th March, 1988, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be an order, it would not be an order of the "competent authority" as envisaged in Chapter XX-A as it then stood relating to acquisition of immovable property. When the letter of 12th April, 1989 is not an order of the "competent authority", the question of considering such letter of 12th April, 1989 as continuation of the order passed by the "competent authority" on 29th March, 1988 cannot arise. The only order of the "competent authority" on record is that dt. 29th March, 1988 in respect of which we have already pointed out the appellant had stated in correspondence that no appeal was filed and in respect of which the time for filing an appeal is over. Again for the sake of completeness, we would state that occasion had arisen for this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
