9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -tax Act, under section 269UC. The statement was filed on August 23, 1989. By a letter dated October 17, 1989, which is impugned before me, the appropriate authority rejected the statement and directed the vendors and the petitioners to file a fresh agreement and statement under Form No. 37-I after setting right certain irregularities and infirmities discussed in the order. It is also stated by the appropriate authority that the statement filed on August 23, 1989, is non est. in law. The petitioners alleged in the affidavit that the order of the appropriate authority is totally erroneous, illegal, opposed to the provisions of the Act and without jurisdiction. It is stated that the appropriate authority under section 269UD can exercise the power of the pre-emptive purchase, and if the appropriate authority chooses not to purchase the property, and if no order of purchase is passed Within the time prescribed under section 269UC(1), no other order can be passed by the appropriate authority. It is also stated that the appropriate authority does not have the jurisdiction to vary the terms of the agreement between the parties or to improve upon the same. It is also stated that it is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statement was deficient, the same was not actionable. It is stated in the counter that the appropriate authority is bound to examine the question of title of the property in adequate detail as any prudent purchaser would do and that the appropriate authority was competent and justified in going into the question of title over the property. It is stated that in the letter dated October 17, 1989, the respondents have discussed in elaborate detail, the deficiencies and infirmities in the statement. It is also stated that the appropriate authority has to examine the issue of title over the property so that in cases where it decides to purchase the property it has to satisfy itself about the title as any prudent purchaser would do. It is also stated that the appropriate authority has a right to pre-emptive purchase, and to exercise the same the appropriate authority has to examine the title over the property, and as such the action of the respondents is quite legal and valid. It is also stated that the appropriate authority has the power to reject the defective application which is deficient in details and inactionable and has to be viewed as invalid ab initio. It Is pointed out th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bound to pass an order for registration of sale. It is pointed out that this court has passed a decree in C.S. No. 198 of 1991. Reiterating the contentions in the counter, Mr. N. V. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that it is a case where the title itself is not valid and is defective and as such the Department has rejected the application filed under section 269UC as early as October, 1989. Learned counsel further points out that the writ petition itself filed by the petitioners is not maintainable in view of the Division Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in Rajata Trust v. Chief CIT [1992] 193 ITR 220. It is also pointed out by learned counsel that the decree of the original side of this High Court is subsequent to the order of the appropriate authority rejecting the application or returning the application in October, 1989. Learned counsel relies upon a judgment in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509 (SC) for the proposition that during the subsistence of a partnership no partner can deal with the property as his own and in this case it has been done, and so the application has been returned. In this case, what has been prevented ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k that they can make a roving enquiry with regard to the title of the property. In my view, they have no jurisdiction at all to apply the partnership law to test the agreement in the light of the various provisions of the Partnership Act, the Transfer of Property Act and other personal laws of the land. If the appropriate authority is of the opinion that the agreement is invalid, in my view, the only course open to him is not to make a pre-emptive purchase of the property. It is the look out of the transferor and transferee to sort out the various clauses in the agreement whether it is enforceable or not enforceable, whether the agreement is valid or not, etc. I do not think the appropriate authority has got jurisdiction to decide and say that the agreement is ab initio void and is contrary to the principles of the Partnership Act as has been done in this case. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the Department in case reported in Rajata Trust v. Chief CIT [1992] 193 ITR 220 (Kar). The principle decided in that case is that a person who has entered into an agreement for sale of a property could not object to the purchase of the property by the Central Government. That was a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
