9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (4) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eer was of the view that the consideration for the sale of the flat in question had been understated. On November 20, 1992, notice was issued to the petitioner-company requesting it to show cause why the flat in question should not be purchased under Chapter XX-C of the Act as the apparent consideration shown by the petitioner appeared to be understated as compared to the fair market value of the flat in question. According to the petitioners, this notice was received on November 23, 1992. On November 25, 1992, the petitioner appeared and also submitted a letter asking for a copy of the valuation report prepared or obtained by the Department so that it could make submissions as to whether the apparent consideration as stated in the agreement for sale was less than the fair market value by 15 per cent. At the hearing on November 25, 1992, the petitioner was told that the appropriate authority was basing its finding as to undervaluation on two transactions: one relating to sale of a flat at Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta, and the other at Southern Avenue, Calcutta. The petitioner-company was also asked to make available details of any transactions done in respect of any flats s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er argued. At the hearing the petitioners have raised two contentions. The first is that the appropriate authority had improperly rejected instances of sale of properties at Dover Road given by the petitioners and had failed to consider the difference between the localities of the two instances relied upon by it and that of the flat, in the impugned order. The second contention is that there was a denial of natural justice. The notice to show cause had been received two days before the date of the first hearing. It is contended that adequate opportunity had not been given to enable the petitioners to show that the transaction in question was not being made for an undervalue. The respondent authorities have said that the writ petition was grossly delayed. Secondly, it is stated that the petitioner being only the purchaser had no right or interest in the property under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, could not maintain the writ petition. Thirdly, it is stated that the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Act had been challenged as being unconstitutional before the various courts. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the validity of the provisions of Chapter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Income-tax Act. In view of this fair stand taken by the Attorney-General, the controversy has become somewhat narrow. " The question was also considered at some length by me in the case of Hari Krishna Kanoi v. Appropriate Authority [1994] 207 ITR 743 (Cal) (Matter No. 3110 of 1987, dated September 11, 1992). In that case a similar contention on the part of the respondent authorities was rejected. In any event, I do not think that it is really open to the respondents to raise the point at this stage. They had given the show-cause notice to the petitioner-company. It was the petitioner-company whose arguments were considered and negatived by the appropriate authority. It is too late to say now that the petitioner cannot question the decision of the appropriate authority by way of an application under article 226. However, as far as the merits of the petitioners' case are concerned, I am unable to accept either of the contentions raised by them. As far as the first ground is concerned it is certainly not for the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226 to either weigh the evidence before the appropriate authority or interfere with any finding of fact unless t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opriate authority to issue a show-cause notice. The hearing could be brief or even summary in nature. In this case eight days' notice was given. The matter was heard on three days. Copies of all material sought to be relied upon were made available. Incidentally, in the last letter of the petitioners dated November 30, 1992, it was not stated that the time was inadequate for production of any further material. Indeed, It is not the petitioners' case that they had collected any further material subsequently which they could have produced if they had more time. In any event a prudent purchaser of property of about Rs. 10 lakhs should have armed itself against the possibility of action under section 269UD after submission of Form No. 37-I. Thus a hearing of the kind held in this case was sufficient. There is one aspect of the matter which is only touched upon as it is not of much relevance, and that is the explanation given by the respondents for issuing the show-cause notice barely 10 days before the expiry of the period fixed under section 269UD. The petitioners say that what the Supreme Court held was really of a declaration of the law as it always stood. The appropriate authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... XX-C is to prevent the deprivation of the revenue of the Central Government, it is expected that the Central Government will take expeditious steps to recoup the loss entailed, by selling the flat. The petitioner allowed all this to happen. Even after the advertisement on January 8, 1993, the petitioner did not move the court till the day of the sale. No explanation has been given either in the writ petition or in the affidavit in reply for the delay although the respondents specifically took the point in their affidavit. It is no answer to say that no equities of any third party had intervened and that, therefore, the petitioners' rights could not be defeated by a delay of about six weeks. What would be considered delay is always relative. In the context of the case, the delay of several weeks is, in my view, fatal. Had I not held on the merits against the petitioners, I would have dismissed the petition on this ground alone irrespective of the question of intervening equities as the court does not assist a laggardly litigant. For the reasons stated the writ petition is dismissed. As the sale had been postponed at the instance of the petitioners, I think it would be only fair t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
