9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was made returnable in four weeks. On 2nd February, 2006, after hearing the parties, this Court granted interim relief thereby restraining respondents from proceeding to sell the attached agricultural land by auction in furtherance of impugned notice dated 18.11.2004. 2. Shri Bhattad, learned Counsel for petitioner, at the outset, submits that when petition was drafted, considering the period of limitation of four years appearing in Rule 68B(1), the challenges have been raised accordingly. He submits that said period prior to 01.03.1996 was three years and the amendment making it four years was by Central Board of Direct Taxes. As CBDT could not have exercised such power to amend legislative provisions, Andhra Pradesh High Court in j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner namely R.B. Sriram Durgaprasad, Hon'ble Apex Court itself has on 04th September, 2015 applied limitation of four years. Hence, even if period of limitation is reckoned from 01.04.2001, 18.11.2004 falls within four years and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned Counsel for revenue also adds that when date of dismissal of SLP is decisive, here the 2004 has been dismissed on 13th July, 2017. Hence till then period of limitation must be held to be four years. 4. Without prejudice to these arguments, Advocate Parchure also invites our attention to facts disclosed in para 8 of writ petition to submit that it was a notice for resale and hence in terms of proviso to Rule 68B(1), period of limitation is four years. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be four years till Hon'ble Apex Court decided Civil Appeal against Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment also cannot be accepted. If it is accepted, it leads to a situation in which an amendment effected to a statute by an incompetent authority is allowed to operate for certain period. The authority (CBDT) does not have that power at all and hence its act is void. With the result, we have to accept submission of Advocate Bhattad that all the while said period was three years only. 9. Though in judgment in the case of copartner R.B. Sriram Durgaprasad (HUF) in Civil Appeal No. 4723 of 2006, Hon'ble Apex Court has on 04th September, 2015 set aside the order of High Court and in the process found that certificate issued on 15.07. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itation, therefore, begins to run from 01.04.2001. The period of three years expired on 31.03.2004 and period of four years expired on 31.03.2005. 13. The steps are initiated by department in present matter on 18.11.2004 i.e. after expiry of period of three years but before expiry of period of four years. The judgment of Apex Court which endorses reasoning of Andhra Pradesh High Court on lack of authority in CBDT to increase the period from three years to four years. The incompetent authority, therefore, cannot prejudice legal rights of petitioner flowing from statutory provisions or eclipse the same in any manner. Notice dated 18.11.2004 is, therefore, beyond period of three years and, therefore, hit by Rule 68B( 1). 14. Here, we have to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
