9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Gautam, Advocate ORDER MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. In these writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the CBDT instruction no. 1908 of 19.7.1993 for discriminating between public sector undertakings and individuals, who seek to enter into negotiations for purchasing immovable property that vests in the Government, after proceedings under Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The petitioner was a tenant in the premises at A-3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi ( the tenanted premises ), from the time her husband executed the lease deed dated 15.11.1976. It is stated that eviction petitions against their tenancy had been dismissed twice, on 7.4.1980 and 31.5.1983. Consequently, it is averred that the landlords had lost the right to evict the tenants, despite the expiry of the lease period. The landlords/owners of the premises then entered into an agreement to sell with a third party, and consequently filed Form 37-I on 27.9.1996 before the Appropriate Authority. In those proceedings under Section 269 UD(1) of the Income Tax Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e counter affidavit it is apparent that it is not the intention of the Revenue to physically and by force throw out the petitioner from the portion in his occupation but they shall evict him/her legally as per law i.e. by due process of law. This right and power vests with Central Government and they are entitled to initiate eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1971 and the protection of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956 is no longer available. If we carefully read the impugned order/letter dated 20.5.2005 the same states that the petitioner was requested to vacate the premises within 10 days. It also states that petitioner was an unauthorized occupant and therefore, should vacate the property. 9. At this stage, ld. counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a widow and about 83 years of age. She has been staying in the property since 1976. He states that the petitioner and her children will file an undertaking in this Court that they shall vacate the premises on or before 30th November, 2012. The said undertaking will be filed by Shiela Sen Gupta within two weeks and by her children within 4 weeks as it is stated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property. It is this circular of 19.7.1993 ( the impugned circular ) that the petitioner seeks to challenge, as being discriminatory against private individuals and in favour of public sector undertakings/Government Departments, the latter being allowed to pursue such negotiations. 6. The petitioner argues that the CBDT, being constituted under the Central Board of Revenue Act, 1963, was State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the CBDT s administrative instruction barring negotiation by private individuals for purchase of public property violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Particularly, since the state action in question is disposal of State property, all the persons interested in purchasing the same must be invited for private negotiations, in accordance with Article 14. Next, it is argued that the Appropriate Authority under the Act, in Chapter XX-C, was vested with the power to purchase immovable properties in certain cases, to recover the tax from an assessee found to be indulging in evasion, as provided in Sections 269U 269UO, particularly under Section 269UI. However, these provisions do not confer the power to further sell these propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Authority, to be allowed to purchase the tenanted premises, which at present, vests in the Central Government. The CBDT circular of 19.7.1993 recommends that immovable properties that are pre-emptively purchased by the Central Government, that remain unsold in public auction, should be attempted to be disposed of by inviting sealed tenders. The portion of the circular sought to be challenged reads: (vi) If the property remains unsold even after inviting sealed tenders the CCIT may enter into direct negotiations for disposal of the property but such negotiations should be entered only with public sector undertakings and the State/Central Govt. Department. The negotiations should start with themarket value estimated by the Appropriate Authority and should not go below the reserve price fixed for the sale of the property. 9. The CBDT is conferred the authority to issue circulars and instructions for proper administration of the Income Tax Act, under Section 119. A circular is thus merely an administrative instruction, and can be challenged if it overrides or seeks to supplant the parent statute. It is nobody s case that the impugned circular overrides the Act. Instead, what ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
