9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order - - - - - Dated:- 9-12-2005 - Judge(s) : D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR. JUDGMENT D.V. Shylendra Kumar J.-These writ petitions by a person who was the highest bidder in an auction sale conducted by the income-tax authorities who had put up for sale several parcels of properties they had acquired by pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XXC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in terms of public auction notice published in The Sunday Times of India on July 28, 1996, indicating the sale of nine items of the properties mentioned therein to take place on August 21, 1996 at Conference Hall, 2nd Floor, C.R. Buildings, Queens Road, Bangalore-1. Amongst nine properties for sale on that day, the petitioner herein was the highest bidder in respect of the property figuring at serial Nos. 5 and 9. The petitioner had offered the highest price participating in the auction bid in terms of the sale conditions which has been indicated in the notification. It is the plea of the petitioner that the petitioner had in respect of these two properties, namely, No. 4/2-B, Hoodi Village, Mahadevapura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, and survey Nos. 35 to 39 (old No. 100) Mayamgutta, B. Narayanapura K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n terms of the order dated January 4, 2002, inter alia, observing that it is open to the petitioner to approach the authorities/civil court and it was not necessary for the court to decide such disputed facts, etc. However, this court observed that it is open to the petitioner to give representation to the respondents who may consider the same. The petitioners did give such representation on February 22, 2002, and the Commissioner on consideration of the same, rejected the representation, in terms of the order dated March 21, 2002, copy at annexure J. This was followed up by forfeiture order dated May 1, 2002, forfeiting the total amounts of Rs. 9,80,300 and Rs. 82,94,000 which were deposited by the petitioner in respect of the two properties for violation of the terms of sale conditions and for non-payment of the balance sale consideration, etc. Aggrieved by the forfeiture order, these present writ petitions are filed. Notices had been issued to the respondent, whereupon the respondent has entered appearance through his standing counsel. The respondent has also filed the statement of objections denying the petition averments and sought for dismissal of the writ petitions in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition should be allowed and the respondent is directed to refund the amount after deducting incidental charges that the respondent might have incurred for conducting the sale, etc. In support of such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhikraj Jaipuria v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 113, in the case of K.P. Chowdhry v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 203 and AIR 1962 SC 118(?). It is contended that the Commissioner has no power to pass an order like the forfeiture order under the provisions of Chapter XXC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, nor the said power can be attributed to any other statutory provision, having regard to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhikraj Jaipuria v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 113, the power cannot also be attributed to article 329 particularly as there was no concluded contract in terms of the provisions of article 329 of the Constitution of India in the absence of there being a written contract, the contract having been not signed by either of the parties and also not a contract in the name of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the petitioner had suffered in the earlier round of litigation particularly the order in the earlier writ petition as affirmed by the Division Bench in the writ appeal, the petitioner could question the order of this nature, if at all by filing a suit for such purpose and not by filing repeated writ petitions and that the earlier order precludes the petitioner from canvassing the same contentions yet again in these writ petitions. Learned standing counsel has also submitted that the act on the part of the Commissioner is well within the jurisdiction. The Commissioner who had been authorised by the President of India for not only entering into the contract of sale but also for conducting the sale and also the exercise of the power being for the purposes of the Act and being incidental to conducting a sale of this nature, the Commissioner is well within his jurisdiction in passing the orders of forfeiture as per the terms and conditions of sale and to protect the interest of the Revenue and that the entire proceedings having arisen in the context of the provisions of Chapter XXC of the Act, a provision which has been enacted by the Legislature for preventing the evasion of tax li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ences necessarily follows unless it is held that any of the conditions by themselves are bad, illegal, unconstitutional. In so far as the arguments of arbitrariness or lack of fairness in the State action, it does not hold good for the simple reason that in the matter of administering the State largesse, what is needed is that the State should not pick or choose persons or deny equal opportunity to any person. Since the petitioner emerged as the highest bidder, if the petitioner does not encash on being a successful bidder, the petitioner has to blame himself and there is nothing either arbitrary or unfair in the impugned orders as the orders are only in consonance with the terms and conditions of the sale. I do not find any substance in the argument for the purpose of characterising the order either as blatantly arbitrary or as one under which unfair action can be attributed to the State. Sri K.G. Raghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently urged that the court should see the injustice of the matter in the sense the petitioner is being deprived of the huge sum without any justification and therefore, the reliefs could be extended by examining such question even in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
